# HR34 RVU Field Trial



## harsh

DIRECTV announces the field trial of the HR34 and the C30 Home Media Client.

http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=578966



> EL SEGUNDO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DIRECTV, the world's largest pay TV service, has recently started field trial testing for its highly anticipated DIRECTV® Home Media Center that will ultimately provide customers with a "receiver-less" solution for many TVs in their homes. The launch of field trial testing for DIRECTV's model HR34 RVU-enabled server, the heart of the DIRECTV Home Media Center, marks a major milestone both for the RVU technology and the new DIRECTV platform, which the company plans to begin rolling out nationwide to customers in October 2011.
> 
> RVU is a client/server-based technology that allows the television viewer to experience a consistent, pixel accurate server-generated user interface on various consumer electronics devices. The RVU specification uses widely implemented UPnP and DLNA technologies to enable a gateway device such as an advanced set-top box to work with non-proprietary client devices such as connected TVs, Blu-ray players and set-top boxes.
> 
> "The DIRECTV Home Media Center is going to simplify the way our customers watch television throughout their homes and give them access not only to their favorite content in HD and DVR functionality on each television, but to a consistent, feature rich user interface, no matter what room they are in," said Romulo Pontual, executive vice president and CTO for DIRECTV. "We made a commitment to RVU technology when we joined the RVU Alliance in 2009, and we are excited to see the fruits of the Alliance's labor becoming a reality with the launch of our DIRECTV Home Media Center field trial."
> 
> The HR34 will be compatible with RVU certified clients, including DIRECTV's C30 Home Media Clients and RVU compatible televisions. RVU certification for these products is expected to be finalized this June.
> 
> DIRECTV is currently a member of The RVU Alliance, founded by Broadcom, Cisco, DIRECTV, Samsung and Verizon, which facilitates the adoption of an open standard technology that allows service providers to expand their unique UI and user experience onto standard consumer devices without the need for proprietary equipment. For more information on the RVU Alliance please visit www.rvualliance.org


----------



## Tom Robertson

Good find! I'm expecting some major coolness goin' on.


----------



## dettxw

Cool!

A public announcement of a field trial seems a little odd.
How often has that been done?
Seems like you hear about such things here first.


----------



## Tom Robertson

dettxw said:


> Cool!
> 
> A public announcement of a field trial seems a little odd.
> How often has that been done?
> Seems like you hear about such things here first.


Very rarely. We've heard about really advanced tests like reverse DBS and Ka long before they turned into products; so this is still unique.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jacmyoung

Sounded to me one of the immediate benefits of this RVU device is to allow us to use our mobile devices as displays.


----------



## DavidMi

Maybe they are trying to downplay the announcment of new receivers dish made last week.

This technology sounds WAY cooler then what they announced last week!


----------



## RAD

Guess then the HR34/C30 aren't the STB's that some folks thought were the STB's that Pace said a major customer was deferring.


----------



## docderwood

When they are released, can I call Directv and get one or are they going to give me a 3 year old refurb receiver?:nono2:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RAD said:


> Guess then the HR34/C30 aren't the STB's that some folks thought were the STB's that Pace said a major customer was deferring.


WINK WINK...you're right. 

....and there's this interesting information in the announcement...hmmm....



> _RVU certification for these products is expected to be finalized this June._


----------



## RobertE

docderwood said:


> When they are released, can I call Directv and get one or are they going to give me a 3 year old refurb receiver?:nono2:


For crying out loud, it's not even out yet and someone is already pissing and moaning about getting a 3 year old refurb. Unbelievable. :nono2:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jacmyoung said:


> Sounded to me one of the immediate benefits of this RVU device is to allow us to use our mobile devices as displays.


I don't read that anywhere in the announcement....


----------



## docderwood

RobertE said:


> For crying out loud, it's not even out yet and someone is already pissing and moaning about getting a 3 year old refurb. Unbelievable. :nono2:


Couldn't resist.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RobertE said:


> For crying out loud, it's not even out yet and someone is already pissing and moaning about getting a 3 year old refurb. Unbelievable. :nono2:


!rolling

There's always one in every crowd. :lol:


----------



## jacmyoung

"hdtvfan0001" said:


> I don't read that anywhere in the announcement....


In the RVU link by Harsh above there is an April DirecTV interview.


----------



## Doug Brott

We saw this at CES this past January, so I know they exist. Can't wait to see one at my house.


----------



## harsh

jacmyoung said:


> Sounded to me one of the immediate benefits of this RVU device is to allow us to use our mobile devices as displays.


Assuming that someone steps up to write an RVU client for the devices in question.


----------



## David Ortiz

Doug Brott said:


> We saw this at CES this past January, so I know they exist. Can't wait to see one at my house.


+1, or maybe 2


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jacmyoung said:


> In the RVU link by Harsh above there is an April DirecTV interview.


Here's what's in the DirecTV release:



> *The RVU specification uses widely implemented UPnP and DLNA technologies to enable a gateway device such as an advanced set-top box to work with non-proprietary client devices such as connected TVs, Blu-ray players and set-top boxes. *


...there's nothing about mobile devices. As for the linked RVU site....they only talk about potential uses, nothing related to this implementation.


harsh said:


> Assuming that someone steps up to write an RVU client for the devices in question.


Exactly.


----------



## jacmyoung

"harsh" said:


> Assuming that someone steps up to write an RVU client for the devices in question.


Shouldn't that someone be DirecTV? BTW does the mobile device have to be RVU compliant?


----------



## jacmyoung

"hdtvfan0001" said:


> Here's what's in the DirecTV release:
> 
> ...there's nothing about mobile devices. As for the linked RVU site....they only talk about potential uses, nothing related to this implementation.
> 
> Exactly.


Go to that link read the April release.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

This is a pretty exciting, I'll volunteer.


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> Guess then the HR34/C30 aren't the STB's that some folks thought were the STB's that Pace said a major customer was deferring.


Apparently not.

One wonders what Pace was waiting until 2012 to build (unless the HR34 plans were given afterburners by DISH's announcement as DavidMi suggests).


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jacmyoung said:


> Go to that link read the April release.


The only release that matters is the DirecTV one...which has no mention of that being in scope.


----------



## jacmyoung

"hdtvfan0001" said:


> The only release that matters is the DirecTV one...which has no mention of that being in scope.


Why don't you go read it? It quoted DirecTV saying so.


----------



## Doug Brott

jacmyoung said:


> Shouldn't that someone be DirecTV? BTW does the mobile device have to be RVU compliant?


RVU is a standard .. Should be pretty much anyone that could write to it. I believe (though correct me if I'm wrong) that Jet Head wrote the software for the chip built into the Samsung TV that is RVU compliant.

As for the mobile device being RVU compliant .. well duh, to talk RVU it would need to comply with RVU.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jacmyoung said:


> Why don't you go read it? It quoted DirecTV saying so.


I had read it previously...and this part closed the door on it anytime soon, certainly anything to do with this announced Field Trial:



> Although the company is not commenting specifically on planned wireless deployments, it looks likely that *in the foreseeable *future Wi-Fi will be *predominantly restricted *to single room deployments when it comes to delivering premium HD services.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> So what device do you suppose that they were talking about waiting until 2012 for? From today's PR, it looks like they're planning on October 2011.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=193170


Guess they beat their time estimates .. Might even be the bigger reason for Pace to punt on a '24' model HD DVR.


----------



## harsh

jacmyoung said:


> Shouldn't that someone be DirecTV?


It should probably be a joint venture of the RVU alliance.


> BTW does the mobile device have to be RVU compliant?


RVU is uniquely a client-server setup. The HR34 is the RVU server and the player must be an RVU client.

The only clients specifically mentioned thus far would be the three Samsung LED TVs and the C30 Home Media Client (an epic fail choice of acronyms in this context, IMO).


----------



## jacmyoung

"hdtvfan0001" said:


> I had read it previously...and this part closed the door on it anytime soon, certainly anything to do with this announced Field Trial:





> "We now have a pretty exciting service enabling consumers to share content between more and more devices in the house so long as they have another set-top box, and then enjoy the same features as if they are sitting at the DVR," said Henry Derovanessian, Senior VP of Engineering at the satellite operator. "Now we are expanding that multiroom concept to the media server to reach non-set tops, such as PCs and mobile devices."


Look for the April news release.


----------



## Doug Brott

jacmyoung said:


> Look for the April news release.


You know .. you could post a link .. might make things a bit easier for everyone.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jacmyoung said:


> Look for the April news release.


The quote I referenced in my post was CUT FROM the April release on the RVU site....maybe YOU should look at it again.

I guess we could consider a remote control a "remote device"...


----------



## RAD

Steve said:


> Depends. If this box was originally slated for 2011 release and is simply going into beta at the end of the year, general deployment in 2012 _could_ be considered a "deferral". Just sayin'.


But the press release says customer rollout, not beta, in 2011.


----------



## Steve

RAD said:


> But the press release says customer rollout, not beta, in 2011.


D'oh! I read too fast. You're 100% right.


----------



## Doug Brott

Yeah, that's where I'm confused as well .. Customer availability in October 2011 is what I saw in the press release.


----------



## Doug Brott

Wonder if it beats the TiVo .. :shrug: :lol:


----------



## harsh

http://www.v-net.tv/NewsDisplay.aspx?id=704&title=directv-explains-multi-screen-home-ambitions


----------



## Steve

Doug Brott said:


> Wonder if it beats the TiVo .. :shrug: :lol:


Good question. Maybe we can get *J Blow* to try and add an HR34 to his cart! :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> http://www.v-net.tv/NewsDisplay.aspx?id=704&title=directv-explains-multi-screen-home-ambitions


Interesting....I still bet this Field trial does not include mobile device support, and is pure RVU to RVU-enabled devices (like the Samsung TV shown at CES).

It sounds like mobile access is something being considered...but not day one.

So I'll give jamyoung 3/4 of a point for his forecast.


----------



## jacmyoung

"hdtvfan0001" said:


> The quote I referenced in my post was CUT FROM the April release on the RVU site..


So was mine

Maybe not initially but if I understand it, all it takes is for DirecTV, or someone on behalf of it, to write a RVU client for that specific mobile device.


----------



## Tom Robertson

In theory any DLNA capable smartphone might be able to process the video stream and be an RVU client. I don't expect any during the field trial, but who knows? 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jacmyoung said:


> Maybe not initially but if I understand it, all it takes is for DirecTV, or someone on behalf of it, to write a RVU client for that specific mobile device.


That would be correct.

Its clearly a roadmap item....but since the announcement targets a June 2011 RVU certification...its most likely something down the road.

We did get to see the beta unit at CES...and it worked very, very well with the Samsung RVU-enabled TV at their booth. If more manufacturers and devices adopt this technology...it could become quite something.


----------



## HoTat2

Say folks;

Quickly, so I don't have to go digging back through the many previous posts on the HR34 HMC, briefly refresh my memory a bit.

How many satellite tuners does the HR34 have again and will thereby occupy that many SWiM channels?

The HR34 will only communicate with RVU clients and none of the present H/HR2X receivers over MRV?

And while the HR34 will use DECA frequencies to communicate with its clients, again it will not be compatible with the current WHDVR service (or MRV)?


----------



## Doug Brott

Maybe I'm missing something, but RVU is a spec .. You'd code your system to the spec and it should work. Now granted the spec isn't finalized, but it looks to be close. I think the whole point is so that DIRECTV doesn't have to write the client side at all. Certainly the server side is the proprietary portion and would be DIRECTV, but the client side in theory could be anyone.


----------



## Doug Brott

HoTat2 said:


> Say folks;
> 
> Quickly, so I don't have to go digging back through the many previous posts on the HR34 HMC, briefly refresh my memory a bit.
> 
> How many satellite tuners does the HR34 have again and will thereby occupy that many SWiM channels?
> 
> The HR34 will only communicate with RVU clients and none of the present H/HR2X receivers over MRV?
> 
> And while the HR34 will use DECA frequencies to communicate with its clients, again it will not be compatible with the current WHDVR service (or MRV)?


RVU is a protocol that runs over the physical network .. Ethernet, MoCA/DECA, Wireless, whatever. RVU is just another layer above that and client server talk RVU.

MRV is something else and proprietary to DIRECTV as far as I can tell.


----------



## Drucifer

Doug Brott said:


> You know .. you could post a link .. might make things a bit easier for everyone.


There are lots here . . . .
http://investor.directv.com/releases.cfm


----------



## Tom Robertson

Drucifer said:


> There are lots here . . . .
> http://investor.directv.com/releases.cfm


Seems like Doug was hoping to make things easier for everyone. You fail.


----------



## Doug Brott

Drucifer said:


> There are lots here . . . .
> http://investor.directv.com/releases.cfm


 .. they were discussing a very specific link yet offering a vague way to get there. Your link does little to reduce the vagueness which was the point to begin with ..


----------



## Drucifer

HoTat2 said:


> . . . .
> The HR34 will only communicate with RVU clients and none of the present H/HR2X receivers over MRV?. . . .


That's my question too. Is it an only a C30 that will work with HR34. Or will any receiver in the DECA cloud work?


----------



## Doug Brott

RVU is RVU and MRV is MRV .. It's like speaking Greek to an English speaking person. Won't work.


----------



## Drucifer

Doug Brott said:


> .. they were discussing a very specific link yet offering a vague way to get there. Your link does little to reduce the vagueness which was the point to begin with ..


I saw lots for April. Didn't know which one, but suspect most would make for an interesting read.


----------



## Steve

Drucifer said:


> I saw lots for April. Didn't know which one, but suspect most would make for an interesting read.


This is the link being referred to, from the RVU website, specifically this section:



> _US satellite operator DIRECTV, a dominant Pay TV provider throughout the Americas, presented its home expansion plans, which are naturally focused on the RVU technology it is pioneering to create a consistent look-and-feel across consumer devices. The RVU standard, developed and promoted by the industry body the RVU Alliance, incorporates a new RUI (Remote User Interface) with the existing Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) standards for device interoperability.
> 
> "We now have a pretty exciting service enabling consumers to share content between more and more devices in the house so long as they have another set-top box, and then enjoy the same features as if they are sitting at the DVR," said Henry Derovanessian, Senior VP of Engineering at the satellite operator. "Now we are expanding that multiroom concept to the media server to reach non-set tops, such as PCs and mobile devices." _


----------



## dettxw

Anybody know if RVU will do 3D?

If so maybe I'll just hold off on replacing my new Pioneer VSX-1020 that won't pass ESPD3D 720p SbS to the TV.


----------



## Drucifer

Doug Brott said:


> RVU is RVU and MRV is MRV .. It's like speaking Greek to an English speaking person. Won't work.


Well that's one way for consolidating the _To Do List_.


----------



## Skyboss

Me thinks I need to wait to buy my next BD player. 

Imagine. Your BD player as an RVU client. Or your gaming system (more likely upgradable). Or even better your AV Receiver/Processor....Theoretically anyway....

Damn. That's slick. Here I was thinking it was going to have to buy a bunch of new Displays.


----------



## jacmyoung

Doug Brott said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but RVU is a spec .. You'd code your system to the spec and it should work. Now granted the spec isn't finalized, but it looks to be close. I think the whole point is so that DIRECTV doesn't have to write the client side at all. Certainly the server side is the proprietary portion and would be DIRECTV, but the client side in theory could be anyone.


I suppose if a mobile device is coded with RVU out of the box it should work with this server out of the box, but since we don't have such a RVU mobile device yet (or do we?), there is a need to have RVU coded on to it for it to work with this server I guess.


----------



## lugnutathome

Somewhere in the cobwebs of discussions on this server device and it's REMOTE clients I read where it was not compatible with the current receiver technology in as much as it's MRV streaming was done on wireless channels to its remote clients.

Elsewhere I read it could serve back down onto the DECA cloud but I suspect the move here is.

Set up a single server off a SWM dish and deploy remote wireless clients about the home. Installation becomes much easier, maintenance too, and then longer term having the TV manufacturers supply the client bits gets DTV out of the receiver business. They deploy the big server on a single line from the dish. Done... I can see the pie chart that sold the concept in my head.

Reality is though that getting out of the STB business will be a *long* journey.

But for now it's all speculation till a product we can touch and run with is in our hands. We all know what press releases are with respect to actuality:nono:

Don "I could see running one of these and several clients at one end of my home as long as its compatible with the other infrastructure" Bolton



Drucifer said:


> That's my question too. Is it an only a C30 that will work with HR34. Or will any receiver in the DECA cloud work?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> RVU is RVU and MRV is MRV .. It's like speaking Greek to an English speaking person. Won't work.


This would seem to be a very important point for some folks.


----------



## inkahauts

I don't see any reason that will keep the HR34 from being able to see say an HR24's playlist... Last I checked, DECA was all about moving information, and looks like it still will be. RVU and MRV are two different formats to get the info from one place to another. The question I have is, assuming the hr34 can see all the older HR's, will it be abe to forward shows from an mrv only server to a rvu only client?


----------



## slimoli

Check it out:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/18/directv-is-field-testing-rvu-will-offer-satellite-tv-without-in/


----------



## Jeremy W

dettxw said:


> Anybody know if RVU will do 3D?


There's absolutely no reason why it wouldn't.


----------



## pdawg17

For someone (like me) that recently remodeled the house and has 2 coax to each room with HR boxes hidden away is there any benefit to this technology? I would also hope that if all programming is watched "remotely" that trickplay gets quicker than what it is now over MRV...


----------



## Jeremy W

pdawg17 said:


> For someone (like me) that recently remodeled the house and has 2 coax to each room with HR boxes hidden away is there any benefit to this technology?


The only solid benefit we know of right now is Picture-in-Picture support.


----------



## RunnerFL

slimoli said:


> Check it out:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/18/directv-is-field-testing-rvu-will-offer-satellite-tv-without-in/


One poor guy who commented on that article thinks TV Apps just came out today. :lol:


----------



## ATARI

slimoli said:


> Check it out:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/18/directv-is-field-testing-rvu-will-offer-satellite-tv-without-in/


Thanks for the link.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Doug Brott said:


> RVU is RVU and MRV is MRV .. It's like speaking Greek to an English speaking person. Won't work.


So are you saying it won't integrate with current HR's?

BTW, how does one get involved with the field trial testing?


----------



## Tom Robertson

pdawg17 said:


> For someone (like me) that recently remodeled the house and has 2 coax to each room with HR boxes hidden away is there any benefit to this technology? I would also hope that if all programming is watched "remotely" that trickplay gets quicker than what it is now over MRV...


Hard to say if anyone who has a good infrastructure and existing receivers will truly benefit from the HR34+RVU. Though I think many people could use a DVR with more than 2 tuners. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W

TheRatPatrol said:


> So are you saying it won't integrate with current HR's?


Not the RVU portion. If the HR34 can also act as a WHDVR server, which I can't see why it wouldn't, then it will integrate just like any other DVR does now.


TheRatPatrol said:


> BTW, how does one get involved with the field trial testing?


Be heavily involved in this site, and one day you might just get that magical PM. I've been a part of a few field trials, and they've been great.


----------



## NR4P

Doug Brott said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but RVU is a spec .. You'd code your system to the spec and it should work. Now granted the spec isn't finalized, but it looks to be close. I think the whole point is so that DIRECTV doesn't have to write the client side at all. Certainly the server side is the proprietary portion and would be DIRECTV, but the client side in theory could be anyone.


I wonder if Directv or some independent body will be testing all these clients with the various servers. Been through alot of devices over the years that should be compatible but aren't in every aspect.

Would hate to be customer with an RVU TV that drops playlists from the server and be in the middle of two vendors arguing over who's not in spec.

Maybe Directv will put a seal of approval on RVU clients they approve of. That could help.


----------



## RunnerFL

NR4P said:


> Maybe Directv will put a seal of approval on RVU clients they approve of. That could help.


If I understand what I've read over the last few months correctly that would be all RVU clients. That's the point of the RVU Alliance, to make devices that will work with anything made by the other members of the RVU Alliance.


----------



## Jeremy W

RunnerFL said:


> If I understand what I've read over the last few months correctly that would be all RVU clients. That's the point of the RVU Alliance, to make devices that will work with anything made by the other members of the RVU Alliance.


You are correct. Any RVU-certified device will work with any other RVU-certified device.


----------



## Groundhog45

Doug Brott said:


> RVU is RVU and MRV is MRV .. It's like speaking Greek to an English speaking person. Won't work.


Could the software on the H and HR boxes be coded to include an RVU module or is specific hardware also involved?


----------



## RAD

"NR4P" said:


> I wonder if Directv or some independent body will be testing all these clients with the various servers. Been through alot of devices over the years that should be compatible but aren't in every aspect.
> 
> Would hate to be customer with an RVU TV that drops playlists from the server and be in the middle of two vendors arguing over who's not in spec.
> 
> Maybe Directv will put a seal of approval on RVU clients they approve of. That could help.


Yes, see http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...versity-Hampshire-InterOperability-Laboratory


----------



## Tom Robertson

Groundhog45 said:


> Could the software on the H and HR boxes be coded to include an RVU module or is specific hardware also involved?


The specific hardware necessary is basically a CPU fast enough to decode the packets, a GPU that can handle the video stream, and a network connection that is reliable enough. (And some memory, power, yada, and yada.) 

Most any recent system on a chip meant for set top boxes would work nicely.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

RAD said:


> Yes, see http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...versity-Hampshire-InterOperability-Laboratory


Thanks, RAD. I thought something had been picked, but couldn't remember.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Groundhog45

Tom Robertson said:


> The specific hardware necessary is basically a CPU fast enough to decode the packets, a GPU that can handle the video stream, and a network connection that is reliable enough. (And some memory, power, yada, and yada.)
> 
> Most any recent system on a chip meant for set top boxes would work nicely.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Next CE cycle???


----------



## jacmyoung

"RAD" said:


> Yes, see http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110107006098/en/RVU-Alliance-Selects-University-Hampshire-InterOperability-Laboratory


The only mobile devices mentioned were tablets, I take that iPads will be the first to benefit when they get around to do it, and smartphones might be on the back burner or never.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Groundhog45 said:


> Next CE cycle???


My suspicions are that the HR's won't be enabled for RVU, either as server or client. At least not anytime in the foreseeable future. I have better hopes that MRV will work in a RVU environment someday.

Part of that suspicion is that I think HR34s and C30s will be mostly intended and used in new installs or new DVR upgrades, so existing HR's won't be part of the infrastructure.

As for H, non-dvr receivers? I'd guess there is a chance those might be RVU enabled--though they might not really need to be if MRV were allowed.

We'll see how this unfolds over time. The HRs have come a long, long way. I expect we'll see RVU go a long way too. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> As for H, non-dvr receivers? I'd guess there is a chance those might be RVU enabled--though *they might not really need to be if MRV were allowed.*


Exactly. As long as the HR34 can function as an MRV server, there is no point in enabling RVU on any of DirecTV's current receivers or DVRs. It's needless duplication, since they're already running DirecTV's GUI.


----------



## HoTat2

Sorry for still being a little confused here, but can someone lend some clarity to exactly how the HR34 connects to the various RVU clients? Ethernet cable?, Coax DECA?, Coax MoCA? ...

And one reason is because I've never been able to see a closeup shot of the rear connections of the HR34.


----------



## Tom Robertson

HoTat2 said:


> Sorry for still being a little confused here, but can someone lend some clarity to exactly how the HR34 connects to the various RVU clients? Ethernet cable?, Coax DECA?, Coax MoCA? ...
> 
> And one reason is because I've never been able to see a closeup shot of the rear connections of the HR34.


No worries, we're happy to help. 

For starters Coax DECA is a part of true Coax MoCA. All new MoCA hardware "should" handle both the original MoCA frequencies and the new DECA frequencies. (Ooops, I don't think DIRECTV receivers will support the original MoCA frequencies--they gots satellites to listen to...) 

So the HR34 will almost certainly support Coax DECA flavor of MoCA.

And for compatibility I wouldn't be surprised if the HR34 has an ethernet jack.

The Samsung TVs have ethernet ports. I don't think they have MoCA inside yet (mine sure doesn't seem to), yet I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung doesn't add that someday.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Jeremy W said:


> The only solid benefit we know of right now is Picture-in-Picture support.


Speaking of PIP, I wonder if the HR34 remote will have dedicated PIP buttons on it?


----------



## PaceHD

Seems like a reversal of the decision to postpone that hurt Pace's share price? Both the Hr34 and C30 are manufactured by Pace according to the firmware watcher. Perhaps Directv decided there just would not be enough TVs out there capable of alternative tech


----------



## Satelliteracer

RAD said:


> But the press release says customer rollout, not beta, in 2011.


Yup


----------



## Jeremy W

TheRatPatrol said:


> Speaking of PIP, I wonder if the HR34 remote will have dedicated PIP buttons on it?


Nope, it'll be controlled by the Yellow button.


----------



## JosephB

I think something that everyone has missed in the arguments over mobile devices is that even if you had a mobile device with a software RVU client, it would only work if you were connected to the same local network as the RVU server. By itself RVU can't get out of your local network. Sling uses a service hosted by DISH to connect your mobile devices to Sling-based DISH receivers, and an RVU-enabled device would require that as well. That doesn't even consider that the streams are going to be huge bandwidth-wise and likely won't even work well over a wifi link. It's probably safe to say the video transport (even if all the other data/signaling is different) is the same as MRV, such that it doesn't require re-encoding to push down the pipe. There's a reason this requires DECA and not Ethernet.


----------



## Herdfan

Doug Brott said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but RVU is a spec .. You'd code your system to the spec and it should work. Now granted the spec isn't finalized, but it looks to be close. I think the whole point is so that DIRECTV doesn't have to write the client side at all. Certainly the server side is the proprietary portion and would be DIRECTV, but the client side in theory could be anyone.


Yes, and so is HDMI, but how did that work out in the beginning? There are still issues with HDMI after how many years.

Not sure I would want to put a lot of trust into 3rd party implementation of something I have to support.

PS: Can HDMI, RVU and DirecTV be added to the site dictionary?


----------



## jacmyoung

"JosephB" said:


> I think something that everyone has missed in the arguments over mobile devices is that even if you had a mobile device with a software RVU client, it would only work if you were connected to the same local network as the RVU server. By itself RVU can't get out of your local network. Sling uses a service hosted by DISH to connect your mobile devices to Sling-based DISH receivers, and an RVU-enabled device would require that as well. That doesn't even consider that the streams are going to be huge bandwidth-wise and likely won't even work well over a wifi link. It's probably safe to say the video transport (even if all the other data/signaling is different) is the same as MRV, such that it doesn't require re-encoding to push down the pipe. There's a reason this requires DECA and not Ethernet.


When I was talking about mobile devices I wasn't thinking about "remote" access or "TV Everywhere" but just able to use the mobile devices at home. DirecTV also has this thing called Nomad they are working on.

On another point, if anything, the goal of this RVU server is so we don't need to use an STB at each display, so I don't quite see all the concern about whether this server can work with our existing HR or H models of STBs.


----------



## Doug Brott

JosephB said:


> There's a reason this requires DECA and not Ethernet.


RVU runs over TCP/IP. Could be DECA, Ethernet, WiFi or carrier pigeon as long as it goes fast enough.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> RVU runs over TCP/IP. Could be DECA, Ethernet, WiFi *or carrier pigeon *as long as it goes fast enough.


OK...now that part makes me want to be part of a beta test team for sure.... :lol:


----------



## JosephB

Doug Brott said:


> RVU runs over TCP/IP. Could be DECA, Ethernet, WiFi or carrier pigeon as long as it goes fast enough.


I understand that, but there's a reason that people had trouble when using non-DECA setups for MRV, and there's a reason why DirecTV doesn't support anything but DECA. TCP/IP is not the network layer that is in question here, it's the physical layer. If you have multiple streams running from this box, it will quickly saturate whatever connection you have. I'm sure people will get Ethernet to work, but they'll have to have a pristine perfect setup. And people may even get wifi links to work between bridges, provided they're using some company's bonded channel products. However, many mobile devices only have 802.11g and have slow CPUs and won't be able to handle the raw video coming out of these boxes at the data rates they'll be running at.

Pushing video to a mobile device will require re-encoding, which is what I suspect the aforementioned Nomad product does. The only question would be whether or not it streams, in or out of the home, or if you can simply download your shows to a mobile device (and that question may be answered, I haven't kept up with the Nomad thread)


----------



## icc2515

This does sound very cool. I am not a big techie, but I do know enough to really screw things up.:lol: So if I am reading this right I will be able to go out and buy a compatible Blu-ray or other device like a WD-Live type device and watch recorded or live shows off of a RVU Direct receiver. Much the same way I can watch Youtube with the same devices, only the server will be in my house. How does Direct plan on getting into my wallet on this one. It sounds like I can get rid of several DVR's and save the $7 per month. Do you think Direct will charge a $7 a month per device streaming fee?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Jeremy W said:


> Nope, it'll be controlled by the Yellow button.


Yeah I know. It should have dedicated PIP buttons though, like the others do.


----------



## jacmyoung

"JosephB" said:


> I understand that, but there's a reason that people had trouble when using non-DECA setups for MRV, and there's a reason why DirecTV doesn't support anything but DECA.


I didn't have any issue when I used MRV on my ethernet setup, it was after I had DECA installed by DirecTV I started to see my MRV more choked up, though still not often enough to be a concern.


----------



## dettxw

Doug Brott said:


> RVU runs over TCP/IP. Could be DECA, Ethernet, WiFi or carrier pigeon as long as it goes fast enough.


Gee, I wonder if my HOA allows pigeon coops?


----------



## jasonblair

Jeremy W said:


> Be heavily involved in this site, and one day you might just get that magical PM. I've been a part of a few field trials, and they've been great.


I'm only "moderately" involved in the site (not that I am not heavily involved with my DirecTV equipment), but I am moving into a new house in July, and I just bought an RVU-capable Samsung 46D6400, so if anyone making the decisions on who gets to be in the field trial sees this.... HIT ME UP! ;-)

I'd hate to get the new house all set up for MRV with the current HR23 and H21s, only to have the HR34 solution available a mere 3 months later.


----------



## Steve

Doug Brott said:


> RVU runs over TCP/IP. Could be DECA, Ethernet, WiFi or carrier pigeon as long as it goes fast enough.





jasonblair said:


> I'd hate to get the new house all set up for MRV with the current HR23 and H21s, only to have the HR34 solution available a mere 3 months later.


Seems like the same wiring set-up (DECA) will work for either MRV or RVU, so you should be OK either way.


----------



## JosephB

jacmyoung said:


> I didn't have any issue when I used MRV on my ethernet setup, it was after I had DECA installed by DirecTV I started to see my MRV more choked up, though still not often enough to be a concern.


But not everyone has the same experience as you. For everyone who says they didn't have any trouble, there's someone who did. Plus, mobile devices (iPads, etc.) don't have Ethernet ports anyway, so Ethernet performance is not germane to this particular debate.



Steve said:


> Seems like the same wiring set-up (DECA) will work for either MRV or RVU, so you should be OK either way.


I'd be more concerned with burning any possible special deals available and having to pay full price for the HR34


----------



## rahlquist

Doug Brott said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but RVU is a spec .. You'd code your system to the spec and it should work. Now granted the spec isn't finalized, but it looks to be close. I think the whole point is so that DIRECTV doesn't have to write the client side at all. Certainly the server side is the proprietary portion and would be DIRECTV, but the client side in theory could be anyone.


A bit behind the times here, so forgive me if I am incorrect (thats why I am asking).

Isn't the mechanics that MRV and DirectTV2PC use part of a spec too that to the best of my knowledge is still locked out to 3rd party playback? I mean how long have we heard that people can see their DVR on their network but cant access the data? Or has something changed there too?

What indication do we have that D* will be any more accommodating now?


----------



## Steve

rahlquist said:


> I mean how long have we heard that people can see their DVR on their network but cant access the data? Or has something changed there too?
> 
> What indication do we have that D* will be any more accommodating now?


The reason you can currently see your DVR playlist on some DLNA clients, but not play the recordings, is because the device doesn't have the decryption keys necessary to unlock that content for you. I wouldn't expect that to change in a future RVU scenario.

So yes, whichever company creates an RVU client intended to work with DirecTV would have to have some prior arrangement in place with D* to exchange the necessary transmission digital content protection (DTCP) keys. Just my .02.


----------



## JosephB

rahlquist said:


> A bit behind the times here, so forgive me if I am incorrect (thats why I am asking).
> 
> Isn't the mechanics that MRV and DirectTV2PC use part of a spec too that to the best of my knowledge is still locked out to 3rd party playback? I mean how long have we heard that people can see their DVR on their network but cant access the data? Or has something changed there too?
> 
> What indication do we have that D* will be any more accommodating now?


The difference is that MRV/DirecTV2PC are built on a spec (developed solely by DirecTV) but that spec was never meant for outside products/companies to access. You can reverse engineer, poke around, and get access to things, but DirecTV doesn't intend for you to actually use it to build products (and thus doesn't give out their decryption keys so you can't get video). It's a spec only insofar as DirecTV wants to be able to build multiple products on their own that interoperate and have a standard to work from internally.

With RVU, it has been built with access from other devices in mind, in conjunction with an industry consortium that developed the spec. That said, RVU isn't an *open* spec which is something that should be pointed out. To build an RVU client (either software or hardware) you have to join and pay the RVU alliance and your client then has to be approved by the RVU group. You can't just go download an RVU SDK and build stuff in your basement.


----------



## BudShark

JosephB said:


> The difference is that MRV/DirecTV2PC are built on a spec (developed solely by DirecTV) but that spec was never meant for outside products/companies to access. You can reverse engineer, poke around, and get access to things, but DirecTV doesn't intend for you to actually use it to build products (and thus doesn't give out their decryption keys so you can't get video). It's a spec only insofar as DirecTV wants to be able to build multiple products on their own that interoperate and have a standard to work from internally.
> 
> With RVU, it has been built with access from other devices in mind, in conjunction with an industry consortium that developed the spec. That said, RVU isn't an *open* spec which is something that should be pointed out. To build an RVU client (either software or hardware) you have to join and pay the RVU alliance and your client then has to be approved by the RVU group. You can't just go download an RVU SDK and build stuff in your basement.


Technically these items are not true.

MRV, DirecTV2PC, and RVU are all based on standards, specs, and publicized systems. They are all DLNA based with extensions (like DTCP-IP and RVU) on top of the standard DLNA specs. The "only" thing that makes them not interoperable are the keys - which are held to licensed systems and providers for DRM purposes. And the keys themselves are part of the specs.

There is nothing "unique" or special about anything DirecTV has done. In fact, they are probably one of (if not the) leading pay TV providers out there using the agreed upon and published standards.


----------



## JosephB

Exactly what open spec, then, is MRV built on?

Also, why is the RVU spec $500 to order and you have to sign an NDA to get it? http://www.rvualliance.org/files/st...Specification Order Form And NDA Final_v6.pdf

That is not an open spec. These may be built on top of DLNA or interoperable with DLNA, but if there are parts you have to buy or get approval to release a product, even if that part of the spec are the keys, then it's not an open system. An RVU client without keys is not an RVU client.

Oh, and you can't release a product based on the spec if you spend $500 to get it, you must be an RVU member:



> The Prospective Member
> will not use any Confidential Information for any purpose except to
> evaluate membership in RVU (the "Purpose"). .......
> ....
> ....
> Both parties understand and acknowledge that no license
> under any patents, copyrights, trademarks, or maskworks is
> granted to or conferred upon the Prospective Member in this
> Agreement or by the disclosure of the Technology,
> Specification or any other Confidential Information to the
> Prospective Member as contemplated hereunder, either
> expressly, by implication, inducement, estoppel or otherwise,
> and that any license under any such intellectual property rights
> must be express and in writing. In particular, the Prospective
> Member acknowledges that the Technology is the intellectual
> property of one or more members of RVU, and subject to
> RVU's Intellectual Property Rights Policy.


----------



## BudShark

JosephB said:


> Exactly what open spec, then, is MRV built on?
> 
> Also, why is the RVU spec $500 to order and you have to sign an NDA to get it? http://www.rvualliance.org/files/st...Specification Order Form And NDA Final_v6.pdf
> 
> That is not an open spec. These may be built on top of DLNA or interoperable with DLNA, but if there are parts you have to buy or get approval to release a product, even if that part of the spec are the keys, then it's not an open system. An RVU client without keys is not an RVU client.


You're confusing open spec with open source.

Open Spec does not mean there can't be licensing or approvals. Most open specs actually have licensing and approval bodies.

DirecTV MRV and 2PC are full DLNA implementations. In fact, there were points during trials where 3rd party apps could actually connect and play due to a key issue. But, for DRM purposes, DirecTV uses a key system to control what apps can access the content.

RVU is an open spec that is licensed. But... anyone who builds an RVU system, which complies with the open spec and is licensed/approved by the RVU body will interconnect and work with DirecTVs RVU implementation. Plain as that.


----------



## JosephB

That is a complete misunderstanding of the term open specification. HTTP is an open spec. HTML is an open spec. An open specification means it's open and doesn't require anyone's approval to use it. RVU is the epitome of a closed specification. The only thing more closed than RVU is something like Skype.

The fact that two products from two companies interoperate does not make it open. That makes it a standard.


----------



## BudShark

JosephB said:


> Exactly what open spec, then, is MRV built on?
> 
> Also, why is the RVU spec $500 to order and you have to sign an NDA to get it? http://www.rvualliance.org/files/st...Specification Order Form And NDA Final_v6.pdf
> 
> That is not an open spec. These may be built on top of DLNA or interoperable with DLNA, but if there are parts you have to buy or get approval to release a product, even if that part of the spec are the keys, then it's not an open system. An RVU client without keys is not an RVU client.
> 
> Oh, and you can't release a product based on the spec if you spend $500 to get it, you must be an RVU member:


And to directly answer your question.. here ya go. Paying $500 to a standard body to ensure compliance and control to keep a level of quality and ensure interoperability isn't unusual at all:

Scope of RVU Technical Specifications:

•Device and Service Discovery and Control - UPnP SSDP
•Media Management, Distribution, and Control - Digital Living Network AllianceTM (DLNA®), UPnP
•Content streaming and media format interoperability - DLNA AV Transport HTTP
•Digital content protection - DTCP-IP link protection
•Remote User Interface - Low-overhead remote bitmap RUI, including remote control commands and status from client devices to the server

http://www.rvualliance.org/about_rvu

A search of this forum, as well as google - will further go into details about the manner in which RVU rides on top of DLNA implementations. Its still governed by DRM - which is the primary concern of the content providers and distributors to protect their property and revenue streams.


----------



## BudShark

JosephB said:


> That is a complete misunderstanding of the term open specification. HTTP is an open spec. HTML is an open spec. An open specification means it's open and doesn't require anyone's approval to use it. RVU is the epitome of a closed specification. The only thing more closed than RVU is something like Skype.


It would seem that this is your complete misunderstanding of the term:



> An open specification is a specification created and controlled, in an open and fair process, by an association or a standardization body intending to achieve interoperability and interchangeability. An open specification is not controlled by a single company or individual or by a group with discriminatory membership criteria. Copies of Open Specifications are available free of charge or for a moderate fee and can be implemented under reasonable and non discriminatory licensing (RAND) terms by all interested parties.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_specifications


----------



## JosephB

But RVU is the glue that holds it all together, and you can't build an RVU system without permission of RVU. Actually, you can't build a system without being a *member* of the RVU Alliance.

Under the definition of most standards granting and governmental bodies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_specification) RVU does not meet the criteria for an open standard. It's a standard, no doubt. But it is not open.

EU: It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.

ITU: "Open Standards" are standards made available to the general public and are developed (or approved) and maintained via a collaborative and consensus driven process. "Open Standards" facilitate interoperability and data exchange among different products or services and are intended for widespread adoption.

Denmark: An open standard is accessible to everyone free of charge (i.e. there is no discrimination between users, and no payment or other considerations are required as a condition of use of the standard)

France: By open standard is understood any communication, interconnection or interchange protocol, and any interoperable data format whose specifications are public and without any restriction in their access or implementation.

Microsoft: Let's look at what an open standard means: 'open' refers to it being royalty-free, while 'standard' means a technology approved by formalised committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis. An open standard is publicly available, and developed, approved and maintained via a collaborative and consensus driven process.

The only one that really matters is the ITU. The NDA makes this a closed standard.



BudShark said:


> It would seem that this is your complete misunderstanding of the term:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_specifications


By the way, the section you quoted yourself mentioned the spec should be available free of charge

Please do not take all of this to be an argument against RVU. I think it's great and I'm glad to see something like this come along.


----------



## BudShark

Round and round we go... I never called it a standard. I called it a specification as did you. I'm not getting into word play... clearly the EU would define $500 as nominal, and I don't see where the ITU said NDAs weren't allowed. Besides... they are still talking about standards, not specs.

So what exactly is your point? Whats the problem? Why does it matter? DirecTV used DLNA, DTCP-IP, and RVU to develop their solutions. Whether you call it open, closed, standard, specification - what difference does it make and what is the concern?


----------



## JosephB

BudShark said:


> Round and round we go... I never called it a standard. I called it a specification as did you. I'm not getting into word play... clearly the EU would define $500 as nominal, and I don't see where the ITU said NDAs weren't allowed. Besides... they are still talking about standards, not specs.
> 
> So what exactly is your point? Whats the problem? Why does it matter? DirecTV used DLNA, DTCP-IP, and RVU to develop their solutions. Whether you call it open, closed, standard, specification - what difference does it make and what is the concern?


Standard and specification are interchangeable here. The $500 fee isn't the main issue (though some standards bodies prohibit fees for 'open' standards/specs). It's the NDA. Under an NDA it is not freely available. You have to apply to the RVU Alliance to get a copy, you have to pay for it, and they don't have to give it to you.

My point that started all of this was that someone wanted to know if this could be used for a mobile device, and I pointed out that it wasn't as simple as just writing a client, that you would have to get permission from the RVU Alliance to do so, and then you said it was an open standard and you could do whatever you wanted.

The reason I took it so far is that I hate to be told that I'm wrong when it's clear that I'm not. It's not even a debatable issue whether or not RVU is open or not.


----------



## BudShark

JosephB said:


> By the way, the section you quoted yourself mentioned the spec should be available free of charge


I'll respond to your edit...

Really dude? Do you seriously stop reading the second you see a word you want? I'll requote EXACTLY what I quoted before



> An open specification is a specification created and controlled, in an open and fair process, by an association or a standardization body intending to achieve interoperability and interchangeability. An open specification is not controlled by a single company or individual or by a group with discriminatory membership criteria. Copies of Open Specifications are available free of charge or for a moderate fee and can be implemented under reasonable and non discriminatory licensing (RAND) terms by all interested parties.


See that part about "moderate fee"? Yeah... right after the free of charge *OR for a*. So how exactly do you turn that into "Has to be free"?

:nono:


----------



## BudShark

JosephB said:


> It's not even a debatable issue whether or not RVU is open or not.


Oh Ok. Sorry. I'll pick my legos up and go play at a different table. Didn't realilze this wasn't an OPEN debate. :sure:


----------



## BudShark

By the way... since you are unarguably correct... I'll link directly to the ITU website and their *FULL* definition:



> Definition of "Open Standards"
> The ITU-T has a long history of open standards development. However, recently some different external sources have attempted to define the term "Open Standard" in a variety of different ways. In order to avoid confusion, the ITU-T uses for its purpose the term "Open Standards" per the following definition:
> 
> "Open Standards" are standards made available to the general public and are developed (or approved) and maintained via a collaborative and consensus driven process. "Open Standards" facilitate interoperability and data exchange among different products or services and are intended for widespread adoption.
> Other elements of "Open Standards" include, but are not limited to:
> 
> ■Collaborative process - voluntary and market driven development (or approval) following a transparent consensus driven process that is reasonably open to all interested parties.
> ■Reasonably balanced - ensures that the process is not dominated by any one interest group.
> ■Due process - includes consideration of and response to comments by interested parties.
> ■Intellectual property rights (IPRs) - IPRs essential to implement the standard to be licensed to all applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis, either (1) for free and under other reasonable terms and conditions or (2) on reasonable terms and conditions (which may include monetary compensation). Negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are performed outside the SDO.
> ■Quality and level of detail - sufficient to permit the development of a variety of competing implementations of interoperable products or services. Standardized interfaces are not hidden, or controlled other than by the SDO promulgating the standard.
> ■Publicly available - easily available for implementation and use, at a reasonable price. Publication of the text of a standard by others is permitted only with the prior approval of the SDO.
> ■On-going support - maintained and supported over a long period of time.


http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ipr/Pages/open.aspx

So - as we clearly see... Money can NEVER change hands as part of the process of Open Standards per the ITU... Oh wait... hmmm... ummm... well crud. That bullet about exactly what Publicly Available means kinda describes exactly the RVU implementation...


----------



## JosephB

BudShark said:


> I'll respond to your edit...
> 
> Really dude? Do you seriously stop reading the second you see a word you want? I'll requote EXACTLY what I quoted before
> 
> See that part about "moderate fee"? Yeah... right after the free of charge *OR for a*. So how exactly do you turn that into "Has to be free"?
> 
> :nono:


It's not non-discriminatory. I will give you $500 if you can get access to the RVU spec on the assumption that you plan to write a Linux application (doesn't have to be open source) that lets you turn an RVU server into a Video4Linux source. See if they give you the spec.


----------



## BudShark

JosephB said:


> It's not non-discriminatory. I will give you $500 if you can get access to the RVU spec on the assumption that you plan to write a Linux application (doesn't have to be open source) that lets you turn an RVU server into a Video4Linux source. See if they give you the spec.


Considering my understanding of V4L is that its purpose is to capture and record the video, I'd assume you'd be violating the TOA for the DRM aspects of multiple levels of the specs in use here - so I'd guess the answer would be no. But not because they arbitrarily rejected me, but because I directly violated the specs requirements of no video capture for DRM'd content.


----------



## mluntz

Ok, so let me get this straight! I have a C30 and a HR34. The TV that the HR34 is connected to would be done so via HDMI, and not have to be RVU compliant. The other TV's in all the other rooms would have to be RVU compliant in order to control the content wirelessly?

It can also be done as a wired application in the same method we have now?

Also, would a slimeline dish work, or is SWiM necessary?


----------



## BudShark

mluntz said:


> Ok, so let me get this straight! I have a C30 and a HR34. The TV that the HR34 is connected to would be done so via HDMI, and not have to be RVU compliant. The other TV's in all the other rooms would have to be RVU compliant in order to control the content wirelessly?
> 
> It can also be done as a wired application in the same method we have now?
> 
> Also, would a slimeline dish work, or is SWiM necessary?


SWiM is necessary (otherwise it would take 5 cables! )

All the interconnections are not understood yet - but the HR34 would act like a normal receiver and yes, use HDMI to the TV its on.

C30s would make non-RVU TVs work with the HR34 (basically think of it as an RVU adapter).

TVs with RVU built in would not require a C30 or any other receiver if you had an HR34.

Wired/wireless/ethernet/DECA is not something I think anyone can 100% state which options would be available/used.


----------



## JosephB

I'm pretty sure that they previously stated it would use the DECA cloud to connect to RVU clients.


----------



## Tom Robertson

We know that DIRECTV will use the MoCA cloud (at DECA frequencies) as at least one means for RVU. That's one of those "well, yeah" moments. 

As for the NDA, many spec bodies require you won't release information about the specification without approval--hence a limited NDA. We'll see how the NDA evolves as the specification and alliance matures into an operating technology, embraced by the whole industry.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jacmyoung

"JosephB" said:


> I'm pretty sure that they previously stated it would use the DECA cloud to connect to RVU clients.


Although not stated in the latest press release, DirecTV had make a point of this RVU server able to support mobile devices. Therefore technically it must be viable.


----------



## rahlquist

BudShark said:


> DirecTV MRV and 2PC are full DLNA implementations. In fact, there were points during trials where 3rd party apps could actually connect and play due to a key issue. But, for DRM purposes, DirecTV uses a key system to control what apps can access the content.
> 
> RVU is an open spec that is licensed. But... anyone who builds an RVU system, which complies with the open spec and is licensed/approved by the RVU body will interconnect and work with DirecTVs RVU implementation. Plain as that.


And that sir is exactly the clarification I was looking for. So unlike the MRV implementation where D* would have to share its 'keys' with outside parties so they could play, RVU if D* supports it works like HDMI, build a compatible display device and D* really cant say boo about it?

Thanks man.


----------



## ATARI

BudShark said:


> Wired/wireless/ethernet/DECA is not something I think anyone can 100% state which options would be available/used.


If it can handle TCP/IP it shouldn't matter (well, except for bandwidth considerations, of course).


----------



## NR4P

Putting aside the RVU techie stuff aside for a moment, I hope the HR34 oem's have higher quality components and reliability than the current HR generation. From all the rants on dbstalk about failed hard drives and lost content plus my own experience of an HR failing about every 18 -24 mos even with a ups, a single point of failure like an HR34 might cause a home revolt when all the TVs go searching for sat 771 or otherwise at the same time.


----------



## harsh

NR4P said:


> Maybe Directv will put a seal of approval on RVU clients they approve of. That could help.


It wouldn't be an alliance if everyone could offer whatever they saw fit.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Sorry for still being a little confused here, but can someone lend some clarity to exactly how the HR34 connects to the various RVU clients? Ethernet cable?, Coax DECA?, Coax MoCA? ...


I'd guess that most RVU clients (with the likely exception of the C30) will either be Ethernet or Wi-fi at the point of interface.

There doesn't seem to be any mention of MoCA support in consumer televisions as yet.


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> Yes, and so is HDMI, but how did that work out in the beginning?


With the notable exceptions of Samsung and Sony, HDMI went pretty well.


----------



## JosephB

I never said that RVU meant that DirecTV themselves had to approve clients. HDMI is not an open standard. To build an HDMI device the manufacturer has to pay a fee for the connector and a fee + be certified for HDCP. The same is true for RVU. To build an RVU client you have to join the RVU alliance, pay a fee, and your device has to be certified by the RVU Alliance, not DirecTV. However DirecTV is one of the founding members of RVU, so I highly doubt any RVU clients get approved that they do not like.

It's purely an IP based product, and from everything on the RVU site devices should theoretically work with whatever media you have (Ethernet, MoCA, wireless). My point about DECA is simply that DirecTV will likely only support from their end DECA clouds.

All of this is ancillary to the fact that mobile devices won't work with RVU outside of your home, since it's very unlikely that they would approve such a device plus the fact that internet bandwidth would not be anywhere close to fast enough for an uncompressed RVU client to connect. With that fact, I don't see many companies going out of their way to create an RVU client for phones, iPads, or anything else. And I see such products having a hard time getting RVU Alliance certification. 

How many mobile devices have CableLabs approval?


----------



## swans

Is there going to be any provision for backing up your recordings? Will it have RAID? Looks like you are going to be able to have a single point of failure and lose everything you have recorded. At least now I would only lose 1/3 if one of my boxes fails.


----------



## harsh

JosephB said:


> The fact that two products from two companies interoperate does not make it open. That makes it a standard.


I beg to differ. Interoperability can be achieved through cooperation or through reverse engineering. Reverse engineering isn't the way standards should be established.


----------



## JosephB

harsh said:


> I beg to differ. Interoperability can be achieved through cooperation or through reverse engineering. Reverse engineering isn't the way standards should be established.


True enough, a honest-to-god standard is not required for interoperability. But, in most cases they do use standards. RVU in this case is a (closed/proprietary) standard.


----------



## harsh

jacmyoung said:


> Although not stated in the latest press release, DirecTV had make a point of this RVU server able to support mobile devices.


When and where did they say that?

I have serious questions about the HR34's ability to cough up content in a format that any and all media devices can handle. Many (if not most) of the popular hand-held media devices can't handle 1080 video.

RVU was clearly about rendering interfaces on lower (or odd) resolution devices but I'm not convinced that's what DIRECTV is after.


----------



## jacmyoung

"harsh" said:


> When and where did they say that?


From the RVU link you provided in the first post, you even backed it up yourself in a later post

My smartphone can handle 720p easy now, many new devices will be able to handle 1080p, although I agree with JosephB bandwidth will be a constraint.


----------



## Skyboss

JosephB said:


> I understand that, but there's a reason that people had trouble when using non-DECA setups for MRV, and there's a reason why DirecTV doesn't support anything but DECA.


That's different. DECA is used because you have multiple boxes connected in a network. RVU one box with data being rendered on thin clients.


----------



## JosephB

harsh said:


> When and where did they say that?
> 
> I have serious questions about the HR34's ability to cough up content in a format that any and all media devices can handle. Many (if not most) of the popular hand-held media devices can't handle 1080 video.
> 
> RVU was clearly about rendering interfaces on lower (or odd) resolution devices but I'm not convinced that's what DIRECTV is after.





jacmyoung said:


> From the RVU link you provided in the first post, you even backed it up yourself in a later post
> 
> My smartphone can handle 720p easy now, many new devices will be able to handle 1080p, although I agree with JosephB bandwidth will be a constraint.


Resolution is one thing, format is another. If the boxes are spitting out MPEG-4, h.264, or something similar then fine. If they're spitting out MPEG-2, or simply regurgitating the source format, then mobile devices will have massive trouble. iPad supports a limited number of codecs (namely MPEG-4 and h.264) because they have a hardware decoder for those codecs. Also, bitrate is a constraint on the CPU and hardware decoders. iPad and iPod do not support all profiles of h.264. Throw something else at it and it won't work. The CPU is not nearly powerful enough.



Skyboss said:


> That's different. DECA is used because you have multiple boxes connected in a network. RVU one box with data being rendered on thin clients.


DECA is used because it's easy to install (installers know how to do coax) and it's a known quantity. Ethernet requires a whole new skillset and if you bring your own Ethernet, DirecTV can't guarantee the quality of the network.


----------



## Skyboss

JosephB said:


> DECA is used because it's easy to install (installers know how to do coax) and it's a known quantity. Ethernet requires a whole new skillset and if you bring your own Ethernet, DirecTV can't guarantee the quality of the network.


This too, but the idea here is to eliminate hardware not add hardware. I have seen zero difference in performance between my ethernet MRV set up in the past and my current DECA MRV. Honestly, I've had more DVR drop offs with DECA - about 7 since November - considering I had none with ethernet.


----------



## JosephB

Skyboss said:


> This too, but the idea here is to eliminate hardware not add hardware.


Well, I don't know that is the primary concern, but DECA does that as well. With the newer hardware, DECA is built in. I'm curious as to whether or not the MoCA hardware that Samsung is putting in their RVU TVs is compatible with DirecTV's DECA or if you need to use Ethernet or a DirecTV DECA module at the TV.


----------



## Skyboss

JosephB said:


> I'm curious as to whether or not the MoCA hardware that Samsung is putting in their RVU TVs is compatible with DirecTV's DECA or if you need to use Ethernet or a DirecTV DECA module at the TV.


If it doesn't, then it kind of defeats the purpose. All we can do is sit back and wait.


----------



## Steve

Skyboss said:


> If it doesn't, then it kind of defeats the purpose. All we can do is sit back and wait.


Ya. Proabably safe to assume any new MoCA capable device will be using the latest version, 2.0. Among the things that changed from MoCA 1.1:

_Expanded operating frequency range of 500 MHz to 1650 MHz enables all types of pay-TV providers to provide advanced home entertainment networking simultaneously with devices and services already in use on the same coaxial cable._
Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that change was made to include the DECA frequencies.


----------



## harsh

jacmyoung said:


> From the RVU link you provided in the first post, you even backed it up yourself in a later post


Derovanessian said that DIRECTV is beginning to think about such devices, not that they were a critical element of the DIRECTV initiative.


> My smartphone can handle 720p easy now, many new devices will be able to handle 1080p, although I agree with JosephB bandwidth will be a constraint.


The question is complicated by the fact that RVU demands that the phone not only be able to display a movie but that it be able to deal with displaying the graphics. My understanding (perhaps not accurate) is that while the graphics may be rendered by the server, the client must somehow overlay them on (or around) the live video. I'm betting that lets out a lot of the devices.


----------



## JosephB

harsh said:


> Derovanessian said that DIRECTV is beginning to think about such devices, not that they were a critical element of the DIRECTV initiative.The question is complicated by the fact that RVU demands that the phone not only be able to display a movie but that it be able to deal with displaying the graphics. My understanding (perhaps not accurate) is that while the graphics may be rendered by the server, the client must somehow overlay them on (or around) the live video. I'm betting that lets out a lot of the devices.


I was under the impression that the graphics are simply rendered into the video stream at the server. The client is literally only a window back to the server.


----------



## Jeremy W

JosephB said:


> I was under the impression that the graphics are simply rendered into the video stream at the server. The client is literally only a window back to the server.


Incorrect. The graphics are rendered at the server and sent in bitmap form to the client to overlay on the video. I don't want to get into a big technical discussion, so just trust me: overlaying graphics on the stream would require much more powerful hardware than any STB has today. That's why RVU doesn't do it.


----------



## JosephB

Jeremy W said:


> Incorrect. The graphics are rendered at the server and sent in bitmap form to the client to overlay on the video. I don't want to get into a big technical discussion, so just trust me: overlaying graphics on the stream would require much more powerful hardware than any STB has today. That's why RVU doesn't do it.


True enough, I suppose it would require re-encoding to make it work (which is why I don't think RVU will be very useful for mobile devices)


----------



## Jeremy W

JosephB said:


> True enough, I suppose it would require re-encoding to make it work (which is why I don't think RVU will be very useful for mobile devices)


Exactly. The stream would have to be decoded, graphics overlayed, and then re-encoded. The puny STB processor cannot handle that task.


----------



## harsh

Steve said:


> Ya. Proabably safe to assume any new MoCA capable device will be using the latest version, 2.0.


What isn't clear is whether or not MoCA will ever make the move into the client devices (outside the C30).

While the CES mule had MoCA, it doesn't appear that MoCA is native to any of the 2011 Samsung devices outside of their Comcast cable boxes.

Funai, Hitachi, LG, Panasonic and Samsung are associated with the MoCA alliance but they all seem to be pretty mum about any offerings.

Such is not to say that the manufacturers haven't incorporated what is necessary into the products but it seems strange that they're not talking about it given that FIOS and Comcast are deploying MoCA to widely varying extent.


----------



## NR4P

harsh said:


> It wouldn't be an alliance if everyone could offer whatever they saw fit.


Didn't mean offering anything the see fit, just to ensure everything plays nicely. Example, What if Samsung TV remote control is used for Trickplay coming from HR34. Everything but 4x FF works fine. With 4x FF, HR34 locks up and has to be rebooted.

Customer calls Samsung? Or Directv? Who owns the problem and solution?

Not down on RVU, think its great idea. Just thinking about the consumer being the integrator. But knowing Directv's commitment to customer satisfaction, I suspect they have something in the works.


----------



## Jeremy W

NR4P said:


> Example, What if Samsung TV remote control is used for Trickplay coming from HR34. Everything but 4x FF works fine. With 4x FF, HR34 locks up and has to be rebooted.
> 
> Customer calls Samsung? Or Directv? Who owns the problem and solution?


It's DirecTV's fault, period. While it's impossible to control who the customer decides to call, I imagine the natural reaction for most people in this situation would be to call DirecTV.


----------



## JosephB

Doug Brott said:


> RVU runs over TCP/IP. Could be DECA, Ethernet, WiFi or carrier pigeon as long as it goes fast enough.





NR4P said:


> Didn't mean offering anything the see fit, just to ensure everything plays nicely. Example, What if Samsung TV remote control is used for Trickplay coming from HR34. Everything but 4x FF works fine. With 4x FF, HR34 locks up and has to be rebooted.
> 
> Customer calls Samsung? Or Directv? Who owns the problem and solution?
> 
> Not down on RVU, think its great idea. Just thinking about the consumer being the integrator. But knowing Directv's commitment to customer satisfaction, I suspect they have something in the works.


Well, the way that RVU works, the scenario you mention wouldn't really happen. You'd have a major failure or it'd work ok. There's only 3 basic moving parts: display the video stream, overlay the UI, and forward any remote keypresses to the server. RVU certification will certainly focus on interoperability and making sure that the device works with other certified devices, but they will also use the certification process to make sure no one builds a device that does something they don't want (which is why you don't see anything that can record HDMI for example..you won't see anything that can record or stream RVU either)


----------



## davidjplatt

Steve said:


> Depends. If this box was originally slated for 2011 release and is simply going into beta at the end of the year, general deployment in 2012 _could_ be considered a "deferral". Just sayin'.


Did you read the announcement? It says nationwide rollout in October 2011. How is that going into beta the end of the year?


----------



## Steve

davidjplatt said:


> Did you read the announcement? It says nationwide rollout in October 2011. How is that going into beta the end of the year?


Ya. If you read down a few more posts, I realized I misread it. I should have edited that original post. I will now.


----------



## Nabisco

nice, another way they will cut my pay, largest provider cant pay a man a decent wage......



harsh said:


> DIRECTV announces the field trial of the HR34 and the C30 Home Media Client.
> 
> http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=578966


----------



## inkahauts

jdogg said:


> nice, another way they will cut my pay, largest provider cant pay a man a decent wage......


What? :shrug:


----------



## rahlquist

swans said:


> Is there going to be any provision for backing up your recordings? Will it have RAID? Looks like you are going to be able to have a single point of failure and lose everything you have recorded. At least now I would only lose 1/3 if one of my boxes fails.


Umm its television, no worries someone will be happy to fill your replacement dvr with junk.


----------



## jacmyoung

inkahauts said:


> What? :shrug:


My guess as an installer, he gets paid by the number of boxes he installs for each account. Now he will have a more complex system to install, and paid for only a single box work.


----------



## Jeremy W

jacmyoung said:


> Now he will have a more complex system to install, and paid for only a single box work.


Where are you getting this ridiculous information from?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> What isn't clear is whether or not MoCA will ever make the move into the client devices (outside the C30).
> 
> While the CES mule had MoCA, it doesn't appear that MoCA is native to any of the 2011 Samsung devices outside of their Comcast cable boxes.
> 
> Funai, Hitachi, LG, Panasonic and Samsung are associated with the MoCA alliance but they all seem to be pretty mum about any offerings.
> 
> Such is not to say that the manufacturers haven't incorporated what is necessary into the products but it seems strange that they're not talking about it given that FIOS and Comcast are deploying MoCA to widely varying extent.


That's what I'm curious about as well;

Like with MRV, the controlled environment of having a separate coax based "RVU cloud" such as HR34 server to C30 clients, will certainly make life easy on the DirecTV installers and technicians.

But if RVU connectivity on the client devices is via an ethernet port on a TV set, BD player, etc., then what is to help the poor DirecTV installer or technician from now facing the future prospective nightmare of having to deal with issues and troubleshooting connectivity problems over the myriad of customer home network types and configurations?


----------



## ndole

jdogg said:


> nice, another way they will cut my pay, largest provider cant pay a man a decent wage......


You get paid to run cable. You will still run cable into the foreseeable future.
On a side note.. for the most part, you get payed what you're worth. Otherwise, someone else would come along and pay you more instead.


----------



## JosephB

HoTat2 said:


> That's what I'm curious about as well;
> 
> Like with MRV, the controlled environment of having a separate coax based "RVU cloud" such as HR34 server to C30 clients, will certainly make life easy on the DirecTV installers and technicians.
> 
> But if RVU connectivity on the client devices is via an ethernet port on a TV set, BD player, etc., then what is to help the poor DirecTV installer or technician from now facing the future prospective nightmare of having to deal with issues and troubleshooting connectivity problems over the myriad of customer home network types and configurations?


If the TVs have ethernet only (at least when it comes to IP connectivity) they could always use a DECA box to get to the TV via coax.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jacmyoung said:


> My guess as an installer, he gets paid by the number of boxes he installs for each account. Now he will have a more complex system to install, and paid for only a single box work.





Jeremy W said:


> Where are you getting this ridiculous information from?


Just to clarify.

1) The install will likely be *easier* in comparison to most current installs.

2) The HR34 configuration in a home is *an alternative setup *- many (if not most installs) will continue in today's setup/configuration.

3) Based on the configuration of the HR34, it will not support MRV (and there is no need to, since the HR34 itself "serves" the recorded content to all the connected devices.

Its about choices - the HR34 setup will fit the needs of a number of customers based on physical connectivity in the home, as well as content delivery to various rooms. It's not going to be for everyone, nor intended as such.


----------



## TBlazer07

swans said:


> Is there going to be any provision for backing up your recordings? Will it have RAID? Looks like you are going to be able to have a single point of failure and lose everything you have recorded. At least now I would only lose 1/3 if one of my boxes fails.


 I too prefer multiple points of failure .... and probably will get them. :lol: While it IS "only TV" I don't want to lose it all in one blast if I can avoid it. For ME MRV as it is implemented now is the perfect solution. HOWEVER, if this new box saves me 50% of my bill each month then I could live with a single point of failure.


----------



## JosephB

The number of DVRs I've had that have failed (out of 10 total from Series 1 stand alone Tivo, cable co. DVR, DirecTivo, DISH DVR, DirecTV HD DVR) is exactly zero. Even when I hacked my DirecTivos for storage and web access. It's such a low probability event, and then most people are not so uptight about their DVRs that I don't think it will be a priority on the list of features.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> But if RVU connectivity on the client devices is via an ethernet port on a TV set, BD player, etc., then what is to help the poor DirecTV installer or technician from now facing the future prospective nightmare of having to deal with issues and troubleshooting connectivity problems over the myriad of customer home network types and configurations?


Connectivity via Ethernet is a question of continuity that can be simply and conclusively tested. Connectivity via MoCA has that issue as well as a number of difficult to pin down issues (interference, loss, harmonics/ringing) that RF brings to the picture.

Ask anyone who has ever maintained a 10base2 network what kind of diagnostic tools they wished they had.


----------



## jacmyoung

Jeremy W said:


> Where are you getting this ridiculous information from?


Every one of the installers ever came to my places told me so, regardless if they were DirecTV or DISH installers.

Where have you been?


----------



## jacmyoung

harsh said:


> Connectivity via Ethernet is a question of continuity that can be simply and conclusively tested. Connectivity via MoCA has that issue as well as a number of difficult to pin down issues (interference, loss, harmonics/ringing) that RF brings to the picture.
> 
> Ask anyone who has ever maintained a 10base2 network what kind of diagnostic tools they wished they had.


It took four trips and three different installers to finally have my DECA MRV working, and it was only after I came here and learned a thing or two then guided the 4th installer step by step to get the job done

My assumption was none of them actually got paid for my install because of the difficulties.


----------



## ndole

jacmyoung said:


> Every one of the installers ever came to my places told me so, regardless if they were DirecTV or DISH installers.
> 
> Where have you been?


What would a DISH installer know about future D* installation payscale implementation?
For that matter, there isn't a D* installer that knows what it's going to be either.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Hopefully it'll be IPv6 compatible


----------



## dsw2112

HoTat2 said:


> That's what I'm curious about as well;
> 
> Like with MRV, the controlled environment of having a separate coax based "RVU cloud" such as HR34 server to C30 clients, will certainly make life easy on the DirecTV installers and technicians.
> 
> But if RVU connectivity on the client devices is via an ethernet port on a TV set, BD player, etc., then what is to help the poor DirecTV installer or technician from now facing the future prospective nightmare of having to deal with issues and troubleshooting connectivity problems over the myriad of customer home network types and configurations?


I think a non D* RVU client (with ethernet interface) will be much the same as hooking up an HR20-23. Just a DECA behind the client with a short patch cable to the ethernet port.


----------



## jacmyoung

"ndole_mbnd" said:


> What would a DISH installer know about future D* installation payscale implementation?
> For that matter, there isn't a D* installer that knows what it's going to be either.


He is an installer, I would think he knows how he gets paid for the job. He has every reason to speculate what this new server may or may not negatively impact his pay.


----------



## HoTat2

JosephB said:


> If the TVs have ethernet only (at least when it comes to IP connectivity) they could always use a DECA box to get to the TV via coax.





dsw2112 said:


> I think a non D* RVU client (with ethernet interface) will be much the same as hooking up an HR20-23. Just a DECA behind the client with a short patch cable to the ethernet port.


Yes, I wholeheartedly agree;

Of course unlike the DirecTV supported configuration for the WHDVR DECA cloud, any non-DirecTV related internet or home network IP data transfers needed by the Ethernet connected RVU client must flow through the "RVU DECA cloud" to a BB DECA to reach a switch and/or router .

But that aside, I can't believe I didn't think of the obvious solution here of simply supplying a DECA module behind any ethernet connected RVU compatible unit...

Boy ... :imwith: on this one.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Connectivity via Ethernet is a question of continuity that can be simply and conclusively tested. Connectivity via MoCA has that issue as well as a number of difficult to pin down issues (interference, loss, harmonics/ringing) that RF brings to the picture.
> 
> Ask anyone who has ever maintained a 10base2 network what kind of diagnostic tools they wished they had.


This may be true, but I really don't think DirecTV wants their installers and technicians to get into the business performance testing and evaluation, then having to argue with customers over the findings of their home network's inability to properly support RVU connectivity from the HR34 server when there are problems. They would much rather aviod all that controversy by having a separate coax RVU data cloud architecture like with the WHDVR service that they can easily test and troubleshoot.


----------



## JosephB

This is completely off the wall, but I got to thinking about how RVU would affect physical connections between components, primarily audio. I figure that the TV will just treat RVU and audio output as if RVU were the internal ATSC tuner.

But...

That got me to thinking about Google TV. If other STB manufacturers get in on this, Google would be smart to join the RVU alliance. A Google TV box could serve both as a client and a server.


----------



## Tom Robertson

JosephB said:


> This is completely off the wall, but I got to thinking about how RVU would affect physical connections between components, primarily audio. I figure that the TV will just treat RVU and audio output as if RVU were the internal ATSC tuner.
> 
> But...
> 
> That got me to thinking about Google TV. If other STB manufacturers get in on this, Google would be smart to join the RVU alliance. A Google TV box could serve both as a client and a server.


Yupper!

I suspect Google (and many others) will join RVU if RVU wins the allvid proposal from the FCC. (Albeit with a tweak or two, perhaps.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## azarby

What woud happen if for some reason, Dish were to adopt the RVU stanards. Can you imagine some people having both DISH and DTV based recievers going to a common RVU client. Who maintains the network infrastructure?


----------



## Doug Brott

azarby said:


> What woud happen if for some reason, Dish were to adopt the RVU stanards. Can you imagine some people having both DISH and DTV based recievers going to a common RVU client. Who maintains the network infrastructure?


Or Comcast, or Uverse, or FiOS .. I think you're getting the "why" this makes sense. The "how" is a bit elusive as allvid and RVU are separate still. Clearly, RVU is ahead with actual products (at least in "field trial" mode according to the press release).


----------



## HoTat2

Tom Robertson said:


> Yupper!
> 
> I suspect Google (and many others) will join RVU *if RVU wins the allvid proposal from the FCC. (Albeit with a tweak or two, perhaps.) *
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Kind of funny isn't it, if "RVU wins the AllVid proposal?"

Considering that the main goal behind AllVid is actually the opposite of RVU, where the generation of the UI is shifted back from the server to being locally done by the client.

The big difference here of course is that the particular choice of implementation for the features and style of the UI is left to the individual AllVid client manufacturer, and not dependent on the program supplier.


----------



## JosephB

I think there's a place for AllVid (or something like it) and RVU. 

RVU lets you have any display work with a server, but AllVid lets you use any server with any service provider. With AllVid you could have a DISH TiVo or a Charter TiVo. With RVU, you'd only need one TiVo per house.


----------



## Jeremy W

JosephB said:


> RVU lets you have any display work with a server, but AllVid lets you use any server with any service provider. With AllVid you could have a DISH TiVo or a Charter TiVo. With RVU, you'd only need one TiVo per house.


That's assuming Tivo designed their product to work with multiple AllVid gateways simultaneously. I don't see that happening.


----------



## JosephB

Jeremy W said:


> That's assuming Tivo designed their product to work with multiple AllVid gateways simultaneously. I don't see that happening.


Well, it was just a generic example. I'm sure some companies would go with a pure AllVid product, meaning a 'thick' client at each TV, and some companies would partner with providers to have directly compatible boxes (IE: the current TiVo approach). However if both RVU and AllVid were out there (and specifically if AllVid were mandated by the FCC) then there would be a very obvious wide open opportunity for someone to create a multi-tuner AllVid RVU server. Just personally I think TiVo would be great here since they already do (or have done) multiple sources before (cable/sat + OTA). Heck, there's already customer surveys going around from TiVo hinting that they may go the server/client route at some point.


----------



## Jeremy W

JosephB said:


> I'm sure some companies would go with a pure AllVid product, meaning a 'thick' client at each TV


I'm not sure what you mean by this. AllVid is pretty specific on how the system works, at least at a high level.


----------



## Beerstalker

I still think that expecting someone to manufacture a single box that can be hooked up to Dish, DirecTV, Fios, Uverse, and QAM cable, and understand it all and then send it out throughout the house to all devices is going to be too complicated and expensive. 

To me RVU makes much more sense where you can have seperate boxes for Dish, DirecTV, Comcast, that hook into your home ethernet network (or coax network using MOCA). You could even have multiple boxes and have service from each if you wanted. Then your TVs or other thin clients can tune into whichever one you want to use. An app on your screen that launces DirecTV if you want to watch DirecTV, an app for Dish if you want to watch Dish, etc.


----------



## Tom Robertson

AllVid, at a very high level, specifies very little. Six TCP/IP streams of Video using DLNA, DTC-IP, etc.

Plus (and this is the important part) some form of GUI rendering at the gateway that the client must display. This GUI is for the advanced features like PPV and VOD. 

So already we're moving from straight DLNA into something that looks like RVU. 

Allvid has some growing to do with regards to things like netflix, hulu, and vudu. Should gateways be required? Permitted? How should they appear? RVU actually can handle that.

Now, since I don't have $500 to spend on a copy of the spec, I don't know if RVU still allows some of the lower DLNA features. I suspect it does, so ultimately I think a generic DVR could tell an RVU gateway "I want this channel on this TCP/IP stream." Same with a TV, PC, etc. 

So my belief is that it all can work together and that RVU is well on its way to being what the FCC wants.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

Beerstalker said:


> I still think that expecting someone to manufacture a single box that can be hooked up to Dish, DirecTV, Fios, Uverse, and QAM cable, and understand it all and then send it out throughout the house to all devices is going to be too complicated and expensive.
> 
> To me RVU makes much more sense where you can have seperate boxes for Dish, DirecTV, Comcast, that hook into your home ethernet network (or coax network using MOCA). You could even have multiple boxes and have service from each if you wanted. Then your TVs or other thin clients can tune into whichever one you want to use. An app on your screen that launces DirecTV if you want to watch DirecTV, an app for Dish if you want to watch Dish, etc.


AllVid is much closer to the second paragraph. No single box is meant to be the universal gateway. Rather each service provides a gateway from their proprietary service to a universal protocol--Allvid, based upon DLNA.

So the service providers can still have their value added features in their gateways and yet TVs, DVRs, AV Receivers, PCs, etc. don't need unique clients for each different service. No more set top boxes at each TV (someday, of course today they will need allvid clients--generic.) 

TVs will now be AllVid ready where they used to be cable ready. No more cablecard (that the cable companies apparently hated.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> AllVid is much closer to the second paragraph. No single box is meant to be the universal gateway. Rather each service provides a gateway from their proprietary service to a universal protocol--Allvid, based upon DLNA.


Yes, this is the key. I think this is where a lot of people get confused on exactly what AllVid is.


----------



## JosephB

With RVU only, you could not implement a DirecTV Moxi box, for example. The DirecTV RVU server generates ALL of the STB UI and functionality. 

AllVid, on the other hand, provides a basic interface to the provider's service. You get a video stream, basically, and then your AllVid compliant STB then generates the interface and features and handles the recording and scheduling. (Yes, I'm aware that AllVid does create SOME of the UI elements, particularly for VOD and PPV, but that is not the same as RVU)

AllVid is the interface between your STB and the provider (IE: the tuner). RVU is an interface between the STB and your display. I can certainly see a combined AllVid/RVU box: A single Tivo model that you buy at Best Buy regardless of what kind of TV service(s) you have that will allow you to have one Tivo on multiple TVs. The AllVid side connects you to DirecTV/DISH/cable/fiber and the RVU side gets you from the Tivo 'server' out to your TVs. With RVU only, you couldn't have the Tivo doing the scheduling, recording, etc. There's no need for them to compete (other than the providers don't really want to do AllVid in the first place, but CE companies should get on both bandwagons)


----------



## Tom Robertson

JosephB said:


> With RVU only, you could not implement a DirecTV Moxi box, for example. The DirecTV RVU server generates ALL of the STB UI and functionality.
> 
> AllVid, on the other hand, provides a basic interface to the provider's service. You get a video stream, basically, and then your AllVid compliant STB then generates the interface and features and handles the recording and scheduling. (Yes, I'm aware that AllVid does create SOME of the UI elements, particularly for VOD and PPV, but that is not the same as RVU)
> 
> AllVid is the interface between your STB and the provider (IE: the tuner). RVU is an interface between the STB and your display. I can certainly see a combined AllVid/RVU box: A single Tivo model that you buy at Best Buy regardless of what kind of TV service(s) you have that will allow you to have one Tivo on multiple TVs. The AllVid side connects you to DirecTV/DISH/cable/fiber and the RVU side gets you from the Tivo 'server' out to your TVs. With RVU only, you couldn't have the Tivo doing the scheduling, recording, etc. There's no need for them to compete (other than the providers don't really want to do AllVid in the first place, but CE companies should get on both bandwagons)


Right now Allvid got nuttin'. That's the concern. 

RVU can add the basic interface. In fact they have to or the FCC won't pick it. Really is that simple. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## JosephB

Tom Robertson said:


> Right now Allvid got nuttin'. That's the concern.
> 
> RVU can add the basic interface. In fact they have to or the FCC won't pick it. Really is that simple.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


also, everything that I have seen up until this point suggests that RVU wouldn't approve a device that records. Plus, it'd need to be more than a dumb interface between the RVU client and server. If a Tivo were serving as the RVU client, it'd need to be able to get specific information from the RVU server in terms of current channel number, tuner status, available channels, etc.


----------



## Doug Brott

I don't know that recording would be disallowed so much as making sure the DRM chain is maintained.


----------



## Tom Robertson

JosephB said:


> also, everything that I have seen up until this point suggests that RVU wouldn't approve a device that records. Plus, it'd need to be more than a dumb interface between the RVU client and server. If a Tivo were serving as the RVU client, it'd need to be able to get specific information from the RVU server in terms of current channel number, tuner status, available channels, etc.


Ok, so how smart or dumb do you want this interface? 

The requirements set by the FCC will have to be met or RVU won't get picked. RVU will have to allow generic DVRs that meet the copy protection requirements--AllVid's copy protection requirements. (Which should be very similar or the same as RVUs.)

I am not saying RVU is ready to drop in. (It might be, but I don't have a copy of the spec to know.) I am saying the RVU is closer to the Allvid requirements than Allvid is today.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

All I know is that I think this is very exciting.


----------



## JosephB

Tom Robertson said:


> Ok, so how smart or dumb do you want this interface?
> 
> The requirements set by the FCC will have to be met or RVU won't get picked. RVU will have to allow generic DVRs that meet the copy protection requirements--AllVid's copy protection requirements. (Which should be very similar or the same as RVUs.)
> 
> I am not saying RVU is ready to drop in. (It might be, but I don't have a copy of the spec to know.) I am saying the RVU is closer to the Allvid requirements than Allvid is today.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Well, it should be as dumb as possible, just dumping out raw data. However for something like a Tivo to be able to use it, there will need to be more data available than RVU currently sends down the pipe.

And I agree with Doug that the concern for RVU probably is more DRM than competition from other DVRs, and given TiVo's support for DRM, I don't see that being a problem.

RVU is probably closer to Allvid than AllVid only because RVU is about to start shipping, which is perhaps the most important milestone, but doesn't mean RVU will ever be a replacement.


----------



## JosephB

We're quickly getting off track, but I started reading some of the industry filings regarding AllVid. DirecTV is clearly uninterested in AllVid at all. I think the release of the PR about the HR34 betas has little to do with DISH's MRV solution and more to do with AllVid. See: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021649290

DirecTV wants "pixel accurate UI" from the 'gateway' which totally defeats the purpose if you want to replace your DirecTV DVR with a Tivo or Moxi.

DISH's filing doesn't say they're against AllVid, only that they want to be free to continue to release their own STBs in addition to AllVid.


----------



## Tom Robertson

JosephB said:


> Well, it should be as dumb as possible, just dumping out raw data. However for something like a Tivo to be able to use it, there will need to be more data available than RVU currently sends down the pipe.
> 
> And I agree with Doug that the concern for RVU probably is more DRM than competition from other DVRs, and given TiVo's support for DRM, I don't see that being a problem.
> 
> RVU is probably closer to Allvid than AllVid only because RVU is about to start shipping, which is perhaps the most important milestone, but doesn't mean RVU will ever be a replacement.


RVU could be, that is my point. If RVU has or adds the basic information necessary for a generic DVR and TV to understand the channels and order them.

RVU is built upon DLNA, as will AllVid. DLNA should provide enough framework for the machine to machine interface to be defined. After all, that is was it was meant for. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Hopefully it'll be IPv6 compatible


In that IPv4 can coexist with IPv6, it will be. If you're expecting that it will support IPv6 natively, I'm willing to bet that you'll be disappointed. These devices aren't intended for the Internet proper.

There's also the limitations of the various existing DECA adapters to consider.

In the end, some of the efficiency tricks of IPv6 are probably already built into DECA so the benefits wouldn't be as big as they are between IPv4 and IPv6 on conventional Ethernet networks.


----------



## harsh

JosephB said:


> RVU is an interface between the STB and your display.


RVU is the mechanism that presents a user interface along with a video stream from a server, not an STB.

What is the point of having an flexible UI if all it is going to be used for is 1080p televisions?


----------



## JosephB

harsh said:


> In that IPv4 can coexist with IPv6, it will be. If you're expecting that it will support IPv6 natively, I'm willing to bet that you'll be disappointed. These devices aren't intended for the Internet proper.
> 
> There's also the limitations of the various existing DECA adapters to consider.
> 
> In the end, some of the efficiency tricks of IPv6 are probably already built into DECA so the benefits wouldn't be as big as they are between IPv4 and IPv6 on conventional Ethernet networks.


When IPv6 hits, there will be less need for NAT and therefore NAT routers. At some point RVU will need to support IPv6. I'd be willing to bet money that the spec includes using IPv6.



harsh said:


> RVU is the mechanism that presents a user interface along with a video stream from a server, not an STB.
> 
> What is the point of having an flexible UI if all it is going to be used for is 1080p televisions?


The STB creates the UI, whether that set top is in a closet or at the TV. RVU is the mechanism that sends the UI from the box to the TV.

What's the point of having a Tivo if I have to use DirecTV's interface? (and therefore their features) The point of AllVid is that you get a raw data stream from the service provider and you get to buy whatever kind of DVR, TV, or other device you want. The point of RVU is that you can use one box to centralize your tuners/storage and blast that out to many displays. There may be changes in the future, but as it stands RVU is not designed to allow you to bring your own CE devices other than TVs/projectors.


----------



## RAD

JosephB said:


> When IPv6 hits, there will be less need for NAT and therefore NAT routers. At some point RVU will need to support IPv6. I'd be willing to bet money that the spec includes using IPv6.


Sorry but don't agree with less need for NAT. I don't see your ISP giving out as many addresses as you want, they will still want to assign you just one public address.


----------



## JosephB

RAD said:


> Sorry but don't agree with less need for NAT. I don't see your ISP giving out as many addresses as you want, they will still want to assign you just one public address.


You're already wrong. In Comcast's public trials, they give you an entire prefix. I don't know how many IPs that gives you, but it's a lot.

IPv6 has approximately 61,977,889,628,116,596,793,421 IPv6 addresses per square foot of the earth's surface. That means that you can literally have as many IP addresses as you want. I'm sure that some people will still use NAT, since it works as a firewall, but there are lots of applications that will work better when they are not behind a NAT.

Edit:

See: http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/com...-with-ipv6-native-dual-stack-over-docsis.html

Each user has been delegated an IPv6 /64 block as part of the trial which is comprised of approximately 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (18 quintillion)


----------



## RunnerFL

RAD said:


> Sorry but don't agree with less need for NAT. I don't see your ISP giving out as many addresses as you want, they will still want to assign you just one public address.


Not true. The normal IPv6 assignment from an ISP, Tunnel broker, etc is a /64. A /64 of IPv6 is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs. I have 2 /64's myself.


----------



## ndole

jacmyoung said:


> Every one of the installers ever came to my places told me so, regardless if they were DirecTV or DISH installers.
> 
> Where have you been?





ndole_mbnd said:


> What would a DISH installer know about future D* installation payscale implementation?
> For that matter, there isn't a D* installer that knows what it's going to be either.





jacmyoung said:


> He is an installer, I would think he knows how he gets paid for the job. He has every reason to *speculate *what this new server may or may not negatively impact his pay.


Key word there. Speculation. The payscale information for HR34 doesn't exist yet. There isn't a person in any HSP payroll dept that's even heard of the HR34.
Why hasn't he speculated about that here? He's obviously a member if he's up to date on the HR34 RVU stuff [It has never been mentioned in ANY training yet].

I'm just saying, you're making it up. That's all


----------



## RAD

JosephB said:


> You're already wrong. In Comcast's public trials, they give you an entire prefix. I don't know how many IPs that gives you, but it's a lot.
> 
> IPv6 has approximately 61,977,889,628,116,596,793,421 IPv6 addresses per square foot of the earth's surface. That means that you can literally have as many IP addresses as you want. I'm sure that some people will still use NAT, since it works as a firewall, but there are lots of applications that will work better when they are not behind a NAT.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> See: http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/com...-with-ipv6-native-dual-stack-over-docsis.html
> 
> Each user has been delegated an IPv6 /64 block as part of the trial which is comprised of approximately 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (18 quintillion)





RunnerFL said:


> Not true. The normal IPv6 assignment from an ISP, Tunnel broker, etc is a /64. A /64 of IPv6 is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs. I have 2 /64's myself.


Sorry, didn't know that ISP's were going to be that free with addressing for customers homes.


----------



## RunnerFL

RAD said:


> Sorry, didn't know that ISP's were going to be that free with addressing for customers homes.


Well with 340 "untillion" IPv6 addresses they can afford to be giving. :lol:


----------



## Guest

That would be cool if the HR34 was the size of the H25.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> That would be cool if the HR34 was the size of the H25.


Well, it won't be.


----------



## harsh

JosephB said:


> When IPv6 hits, there will be less need for NAT and therefore NAT routers. At some point RVU will need to support IPv6. I'd be willing to bet money that the spec includes using IPv6.


Your on. Now that I've won the bet, I'll tell you why: RVU doesn't define the communications layer. RVU depends on DLNA to handle that on its behalf. RVU is little more than a command set and some bitmapped graphics rendered on the server and downloaded to the client.

DIRECTV surely has no desire to risk exposing people's DVRs to the Internet proper. NAT makes everything very easy and it has the very desirable quality of insulating users from the wilds of the Internet without creating lots of rules and exceptions.


> The STB creates the UI, whether that set top is in a closet or at the TV. RVU is the mechanism that sends the UI from the box to the TV.


With RVU, the server renders the UI and the client (be that the RVU adapter or the TV itself) overlays it onto the video stream. DIRECTV has been doing this for going on 16 years without the benefit of RVU and even the HR34 will likely fall back on the old fashioned video overlay interface on the HDMI connected device.

NOTE: Making references to "STB" and "box" is indeterminate in the context of RVU (and Allvid that we aren't needing to discuss) and should probably be avoided. Ultimately the goal is to have no external client adapter.

RVU would seem to be the carrier forcing their interface on the customer. I'm not convinced that's what everyone is after. I'm guessing that some might even enjoy being able to customize the interface to their tastes/needs rather than having one dictated by someone else's sense of consistency.


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> Sorry but don't agree with less need for NAT. I don't see your ISP giving out as many addresses as you want, they will still want to assign you just one public address.


When IPv6 over the Internet catches on, it probably won't be the ISPs issuing the addresses.


----------



## harsh

CraigerCSM said:


> That would be cool if the HR34 was the size of the H25.


I'm guessing that the tuners alone wouldn't fit into the H25 case.
Where do you suppose they would hide the much beefier power supply, fan(s) and that silly hard drive thingy?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> I'm guessing that the tuners alone wouldn't fit into the H25 case.
> Where do you suppose they would hide the much beefier power supply, fan(s) and that silly hard drive thingy?


Since we saw the HR34 in January...we can safely assume it's roughly the size of the HR24...a slight tad bigger.


----------



## jacmyoung

"ndole_mbnd" said:


> Key word there. Speculation. The payscale information for HR34 doesn't exist yet. There isn't a person in any HSP payroll dept that's even heard of the HR34.
> Why hasn't he speculated about that here? He's obviously a member if he's up to date on the HR34 RVU stuff [It has never been mentioned in ANY training yet].
> 
> I'm just saying, you're making it up. That's all


If you think relying on past experience is making things up, then we all make things up as we go forward.

I have been a DBS customer long enough to see how it becomes more difficult for the installers as the systems get more advanced and more complex, yet they still only get paid by the box and by the trip, if the result is successful that is. If they fail to get things working they lose the pay. The next tech can try his luck, or the next one after that.


----------



## JosephB

harsh said:


> Your on. Now that I've won the bet, I'll tell you why: RVU doesn't define the communications layer. RVU depends on DLNA to handle that on its behalf. RVU is little more than a command set and some bitmapped graphics rendered on the server and downloaded to the client.


I'm sure RVU specifies a certain version of DLNA, which should specify whether or not it supports IPv6. It wouldn't be an issue for a while, since even after IPv6 hits devices will support IPv4. However, eventually what happens if you buy a Samsung TV today that only does v4 and then later on DirecTV updates their boxes to do v6 but Samsung doesn't support your TV anymore with updates. Surely since IPv6 is not only on the radar but beginning to be deployed they've thought about this



> DIRECTV surely has no desire to risk exposing people's DVRs to the Internet proper. NAT makes everything very easy and it has the very desirable quality of insulating users from the wilds of the Internet without creating lots of rules and exceptions.


Firewalls exist that don't do NAT. Outside of the home, most firewalls aren't NAT. I'm sure there will still be routers, but given the advantages to being able to have directly routable IPs (think VoIP, peer to peer, etc) on devices inside your home network, then the trend will be towards less NAT. All DirecTV has to do is put a simple firewall in their DECA-Ethernet bridge that keeps non-local traffic out of the DECA (save for communications to DirecTV)



> With RVU, the server renders the UI and the client (be that the RVU adapter or the TV itself) overlays it onto the video stream. DIRECTV has been doing this for going on 16 years without the benefit of RVU and even the HR34 will likely fall back on the old fashioned video overlay interface on the HDMI connected device.


Yes, I realize this. This is exactly why RVU in its current form is unsuitable for replacing AllVid. With RVU, I couldn't use a Tivo as an RVU client to consume the video from DirecTV, because the Tivo couldn't generate its UI, handle tuning, etc.



> NOTE: Making references to "STB" and "box" is indeterminate in the context of RVU (and Allvid that we aren't needing to discuss) and should probably be avoided. Ultimately the goal is to have no external client adapter.


In these contexts, when I say STB, I mean the tuning device that demodulates the satellite signal, turns it into bits, renders the video, and renders the UI. So, in an RVU context when I say STB, I mean the HR34 itself, not a C30 or any other box at the remote TV and not the TV itself. In an AllVid context, when I say STB I don't mean the gateway that your provider gives you, I mean the box you would buy to connect your TV to that gateway, so, the TiVo or Moxi or Cisco cable box. AllVid and RVU don't exactly map to each other, since they're different in their approaches. AllVid's gateway would be RVU's STB, and AllVid introduces an additional layer.



> RVU would seem to be the carrier forcing their interface on the customer. I'm not convinced that's what everyone is after. I'm guessing that some might even enjoy being able to customize the interface to their tastes/needs rather than having one dictated by someone else's sense of consistency.


AllVid does what you describe. It specifies that the provider gives you a 'gateway' which acts much like an internet router. That gateway tunes your provider's content by whatever method and then spits out a standard video stream along with various data streams including EPG, control data, etc. Then, you have to buy a device (whether it be a TV or something like a TiVo or a standard STB) that consumes that data and video and generates its own UI to present to the user along with handling recording and that type of stuff

AllVid DOES provide that the carrier can generate *SOME* UI, but that is limited to PPV ordering and VOD. When you access VOD or PPV, then whatever device you're using (IE: your TiVo) would function much like an RVU client, in that it would show whatever UI the AllVid gateway sends it, and simply parrots back whatever remote control commands you enter.

AllVid is basically cablecard, but does two things: It applies it to IPTV (FiOS and UVerse) and satellite. It also implements a solution for two-way services like PPV and VOD.



harsh said:


> When IPv6 over the Internet catches on, it probably won't be the ISPs issuing the addresses.


It will have to be the ISPs issuing addresses. How else would they be routable? I don't see ISPs letting you take your addresses with you. (at least not consumer ISPs, but, with business ISPs you can already take IPs with you in some cases)


----------



## BattleScott

Tom Robertson said:


> RVU could be, that is my point. If RVU has or adds the basic information necessary for a generic DVR and TV to understand the channels and order them.
> 
> RVU is built upon DLNA, as will AllVid. DLNA should provide enough framework for the machine to machine interface to be defined. After all, that is was it was meant for.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I don't think the RVU Alliance has any interest in adding this capability to RVU. That type of funtionality is really "anti-RVU". The reason RVU is being presented to the FCC is to have it approved "AS IS" as meeting the requirements of the AllVid proposal. This will allow the member companies, a veritable "who's who" of the closed STB industry, to protect the lucrative STB markets by eliminating the requirement of the open gateway device.

The open gateway requirement of AllVid is the cornerstone of the proposal and without it, the whole thing is a waste of time. I hope the FCC denies the request and continues on the current path of finally driving a wedge between the providers and the hardware required.

RVU is great and all, but it needs to stay where it is as a specific feature of those who wish to offer it, like MRV and the others. As an answer to the AllVid proposal it would just be more bad news for conusmers.


----------



## RobertE

My big question about the HR34 is, if it does or will support the upcoming BSS feeds.


----------



## harsh

JosephB said:


> I'm sure RVU specifies a certain version of DLNA, which should specify whether or not it supports IPv6.[/quiote]DLNA is a set of guidelines that includes transport protocols by reference just as RVU includes DLNA by reference. Interestingly, DLNA is also headquartered in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area just as RVU is.
> 
> Everything is moving target when included by reference but it should be backwards compatible.
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of the home, most firewalls aren't NAT.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your wrong.
> 
> This thread is about the HR34, C30 and RVU. As DIRECTV is pushing DECA, IPv6 is probably off the table as Internet routable addressing removes one level of their existing isolation. Implementing the encapsulation protocols (6to4 and 6rd) is something that will probably need to be done in hardware and the cow is out of the barn there.
Click to expand...


----------



## harsh

For those having troubles getting their heads around what RVU is, there's a helpful diagram on the RVU Alliance website that lays it all out:


----------



## Guest

Wilill their still be a HR25 and how much smaller could that one get?


----------



## harsh

RobertE said:


> My big question about the HR34 is, if it does or will support the upcoming BSS feeds.


The receiver doesn't need to be concerned with the satellite downlink frequency used. It only needs to know what network (satellite) and transponder to ask for.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Wilill their still be a HR25 and how much smaller could that one get?


:shrug:

Remember a DVR needs an HDD no matter what .. I suppose you could use a 2.5" HDD instead of a 3.5" HDD but I don't know if any of them are rated for use in a DVR or not. I don't recall that there are any, but I don't keep close tabs on it either.

Then there is the power supply .. I suppose it could be external just like the H25 but honestly, I'd start questioning the point with a DVR - but that's just me.


----------



## RunnerFL

Doug Brott said:


> :shrug:
> 
> Remember a DVR needs an HDD no matter what .. I suppose you could use a 2.5" HDD instead of a 3.5" HDD but I don't know if any of them are rated for use in a DVR or not. I don't recall that there are any, but I don't keep close tabs on it either.
> 
> Then there is the power supply .. I suppose it could be external just like the H25 but honestly, I'd start questioning the point with a DVR - but that's just me.


I would think they'd want wide open space inside a DVR for airflow to cool the HDD. I don't see them getting much smaller either.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RunnerFL said:


> I would think they'd want wide open space inside a DVR for airflow to cool the HDD. I don't see them getting much smaller either.


Makes alot of sense.

HD DVRs require more ventilation in contrast to HD receivers.


----------



## Doug Brott

BattleScott said:


> The open gateway requirement of AllVid is the cornerstone of the proposal and without it, the whole thing is a waste of time. I hope the FCC denies the request and continues on the current path of finally driving a wedge between the providers and the hardware required.
> 
> RVU is great and all, but it needs to stay where it is as a specific feature of those who wish to offer it, like MRV and the others. As an answer to the AllVid proposal it would just be more bad news for conusmers.


See, this is where I start questioning the "for consumers" part .. The term "dumb gateway" has been tossed about, but that dumb gateway isn't free. So for the consumer we're now adding costs for the gateway .. plus costs for the STB. Even if it's not real dollars, it changes the SAC formula to be higher.

I can see a consumer benefit with RVU if all providers are on board .. You could more easily switch from provider to provider because you would only the one main server box and you could use the same client (even the one built into the Samsung TV for instance) for every provider. That (to me) is much more consumer friendly.

Allvid .. by pushing the smarts out to the client seems to be more of a benefit to those companies that want to sell more gear (Google, TiVo, etc.). I suppose you could keep the same interface between providers here as well, but it also seems like you're going to be adding a subscription fee to pay for all of these "smarts." So you (as a consumer) get to pay more.

All RVU really has to do is allow for a "smart" menu overlay of some sort. So while the normal RVU stuff may be going on behind the scenes, the smart device could render something entirely different giving a different UI experience.


----------



## Jeremy W

harsh said:


> The receiver doesn't need to be concerned with the satellite downlink frequency used. It only needs to know what network (satellite) and transponder to ask for.


It does need to be concerned with the modulation scheme, though.


----------



## Steve

RunnerFL said:


> I would think they'd want wide open space inside a DVR for airflow to cool the HDD. I don't see them getting much smaller either.


If there was an SD card slot on the H25, you could add a 64gb memory card to store about 16 hours of MPEG-4 HD on it.


----------



## NR4P

CraigerCSM said:


> Wilill their still be a HR25 and how much smaller could that one get?


You mean HR24 or H25?

Since the HR24 and H25 just started rolling out, I suspect they will be around for awhile.
But I wonder, is the C30 be similar in size to an H25, or even use the same case?

When you connect power, coaxial audio, HDMI plus other connectors, it needs a certain size to be practical.


----------



## Jeremy W

Steve said:


> If there was an SD card slot on the H25, you could add a 64gb memory card to store about 16 hours of MPEG-4 HD on it.


How about just using the USB port it already has, and attaching a 1TB USB hard drive?


----------



## Jeremy W

NR4P said:


> But I wonder, is the C30 be similar in size to an H25, or even use the same case?


The C30 ditches the tuner, so it could still be smaller.


----------



## JosephB

harsh said:


> DLNA is a set of guidelines that includes transport protocols by reference just as RVU includes DLNA by reference. Interestingly, DLNA is also headquartered in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area just as RVU is.
> 
> Everything is moving target when included by reference but it should be backwards compatible.I bet your wrong.
> 
> This thread is about the HR34, C30 and RVU. As DIRECTV is pushing DECA, IPv6 is probably off the table as Internet routable addressing removes one level of their existing isolation. Implementing the encapsulation protocols (6to4 and 6rd) is something that will probably need to be done in hardware and the cow is out of the barn there.


They will have to support IPv6 simply because DirecTV DVRs don't only communicate with local devices. They do communicate with hosts out on the internet, and eventually that will require IPv6. Keeping IPv4 around for security or keeping hosts off the internet is not the right way to go about it. There are much more robust and 'official' methods of doing what you suggest. For example the server and client could communicate over IPv6 with a local, non-routable IP and then the server would also have a publicly routable IP that it uses to communicate with DirecTV.



Doug Brott said:


> :shrug:
> 
> Remember a DVR needs an HDD no matter what .. I suppose you could use a 2.5" HDD instead of a 3.5" HDD but I don't know if any of them are rated for use in a DVR or not. I don't recall that there are any, but I don't keep close tabs on it either.
> 
> Then there is the power supply .. I suppose it could be external just like the H25 but honestly, I'd start questioning the point with a DVR - but that's just me.


I don't think 2.5" drives are rated for constant use like the larger ones. I have to think that you're probably approaching the smallest box that you can for a DVR. With the push to server/client, it won't really matter anyway. Want to put your TV on the wall? Fine, put the DVR in a closet and run a coax to the TV and use RVU.



Doug Brott said:


> See, this is where I start questioning the "for consumers" part .. The term "dumb gateway" has been tossed about, but that dumb gateway isn't free. So for the consumer we're now adding costs for the gateway .. plus costs for the STB. Even if it's not real dollars, it changes the SAC formula to be higher.
> 
> I can see a consumer benefit with RVU if all providers are on board .. You could more easily switch from provider to provider because you would only the one main server box and you could use the same client (even the one built into the Samsung TV for instance) for every provider. That (to me) is much more consumer friendly.
> 
> Allvid .. by pushing the smarts out to the client seems to be more of a benefit to those companies that want to sell more gear (Google, TiVo, etc.). I suppose you could keep the same interface between providers here as well, but it also seems like you're going to be adding a subscription fee to pay for all of these "smarts." So you (as a consumer) get to pay more.
> 
> All RVU really has to do is allow for a "smart" menu overlay of some sort. So while the normal RVU stuff may be going on behind the scenes, the smart device could render something entirely different giving a different UI experience.


RVU could easily replace AllVid. All they have to do is allow the RVU client to specify that it does not want any UI elements from the server and also send data such as channel, EPG, etc. info in a machine-readable format. However, that defeats your concerns about AllVid. An AllVid gateway would undoubtably be cheaper than any RVU server, since an RVU server will almost always likely be a full-on DVR. If I wanted to add a TiVo to that, then I'm buying two DVRs instead of a DVR + a gateway. RVU could replace AllVid for something like a Google TV, but not a third party DVR. There are other concerns about RVU other than simply overlaying UI (which precludes third party DVRs)

Switching providers would be just as easy with RVU or AllVid, provided that if you were an AllVid customer, you wanted to keep your third party DVR/STB. Also, there's noting preventing TV manufacturers from making AllVid TVs.

AllVid may "benefit" CE companies, but RVU benefits providers. Picking one or the other without addressing concerns of each side means there will be a winner and a loser. It just depends on your personal preferences, so trying to say AllVid 'unfairly' benefits CE companies is to ignore that RVU does the same for video providers.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> The receiver doesn't need to be concerned with the satellite downlink frequency used. It only needs to know what network (satellite) and transponder to ask for.


Huh? 

I don't see how any of this relates to RobertE's question of whether or not the HR34 will be equipped support the new "Reverse DBS" (RDBS or BSS) band.


----------



## LameLefty

NR4P said:


> You mean HR24 or H25?
> 
> Since the HR24 and H25 just started rolling out, I suspect they will be around for awhile.
> But I wonder, is the C30 be similar in size to an H25, or even use the same case?
> 
> When you connect power, coaxial audio, HDMI plus other connectors, it needs a certain size to be practical.





Jeremy W said:


> The C30 ditches the tuner, so it could still be smaller.


How quickly people forget. All the way back in January 2010 . . .

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2326846#post2326846

That should give people an idea of how small any kind of client like this is likely to be.


----------



## sigma1914

I just need this to be released so I can replace my HR24 while recordings are low from watching all my archived stuff. Once fall hits, I'll need those tuners.  I'd field trial the heck out of it!


----------



## TBoneit

Doug Brott said:


> :shrug:
> 
> Remember a DVR needs an HDD no matter what .. I suppose you could use a 2.5" HDD instead of a 3.5" HDD but I don't know if any of them are rated for use in a DVR or not. I don't recall that there are any, but I don't keep close tabs on it either.
> 
> Then there is the power supply .. I suppose it could be external just like the H25 but honestly, I'd start questioning the point with a DVR - but that's just me.


AFAIK the largest 2.5" drive is a terabyte. I have one from WD in one of its media players. The live Hub. I also see a Intel SSD 600Gb = Dang pricy.

Using laptop drives allows savings in power usage. Smaller power supply. Lower heat output. An SSD eve more so. SSD is one way that HP designed a laptop that could run over a day on one charge. LED LCD was another thing they did.

However a SSD should definitely be able to handle multiple video streams with ease.

I've switched two out of three computers to SSD boot drives and what a boost.

The older slow laptop is now quick booting compared to previously and clicking on a browser it happens fast rather than taking it's sweet time. Win7 on a single core CPU. The WEI went to 7.3 on the laptop and 7.5 on the Desktop drives.

I'm now a convert to SSDs, One faster laptop to go.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I hope they put a 1TB drive in it.


----------



## RobertE

HoTat2 said:


> Huh?
> 
> I don't see how any of this relates to RobertE's question of whether or not the HR34 will be equipped support the new "Reverse DBS" (RDBS or BSS) band.


It doesn't. Just more stuff pulled out of the back side to make one sound "informed". 

My hope is that the hardware can handle the BSS sats due in a few years, if not, I may just pass on this one.


----------



## JosephB

An SSD is not feasible because they have a limited number of read/writes on the drive. They extend their lives based on the fact that most people don't fill the drive up so they can spread writes out across the drive, but DVRs are always writing and people often fill up their drives.


----------



## itzme

Now that I got my Samsung 2011 SmarTv, I'd love to field test this baby! Even if RVU came available later down the road.


----------



## LameLefty

RobertE said:


> It doesn't. Just more stuff pulled out of the back side to make one sound "informed".
> 
> My hope is that the hardware can handle the BSS sats due in a few years, if not, I may just pass on this one.


My guess with regard to BSS is that it will require new LNBs and new SWiM firmware/library versions (which I don't think are meant to be field-upgradeable, ergo new SWiMs). Remember, a SWiM-connected DVR simply requests a signal from the SWiM, which remodulates the satellite frequencies as necessary and feeds them out.


----------



## ATARI

JosephB said:


> An SSD is not feasible because they have a limited number of read/writes on the drive. They extend their lives based on the fact that most people don't fill the drive up so they can spread writes out across the drive, but DVRs are always writing and people often fill up their drives.


Current SSD technology is very feasible.

Over 2,000,000 writes means you can totally rewrite the drive contents every minute of every day for 57 years.


----------



## RobertE

LameLefty said:


> My guess with regard to BSS is that it will require new LNBs and new SWiM firmware/library versions (which I don't think are meant to be field-upgradeable, ergo new SWiMs). Remember, a SWiM-connected DVR simply requests a signal from the SWiM, which remodulates the satellite frequencies as necessary and feeds them out.


Yeah, new SWiM LNBs are a given (well, 99.9% sure anyway). Guess we'll have to wait and see. The next 3 years will be giving us a lot of changes, going to be a fun ride.


----------



## BattleScott

Doug Brott said:


> See, this is where I start questioning the "for consumers" part .. The term "dumb gateway" has been tossed about, but that dumb gateway isn't free. So for the consumer we're now adding costs for the gateway .. plus costs for the STB. Even if it's not real dollars, it changes the SAC formula to be higher.


No, not free, but as a "dumb" gateway it has no impact on the user experience so they wil not be able to charge a premium for it like they do today.



Doug Brott said:


> I can see a consumer benefit with RVU if all providers are on board .. You could more easily switch from provider to provider because you would only the one main server box and you could use the same client (even the one built into the Samsung TV for instance) for every provider. That (to me) is much more consumer friendly.


The same is true for AllVid. In fact, AllVid would even take it a step further since after switching providers everything would remain the same from the users perspective, except for any difference in channels. You could, in theory, even retain any recorded content from the previous provider because it would reside on your own equipment. With RVU that equipment would be returned to the provider.



Doug Brott said:


> Allvid .. by pushing the smarts out to the client seems to be more of a benefit to those companies that want to sell more gear (Google, TiVo, etc.). I suppose you could keep the same interface between providers here as well, but it also seems like you're going to be adding a subscription fee to pay for all of these "smarts." So you (as a consumer) get to pay more.


AllVid not only pushes the "smarts" to the clients, it "unlocks" the smarts and puts them in the consumer device market. There, open competition will take care of the rest like it has in other areas. There won't be any subscription fees for it, it will be built in to the TVs, media servers, etc. Instead of DirecTV running adds about pausing in one room and watching in another, Sony, LG, Dell, etc. will be taking care of that. DirecTV will have to advertise about channels they have and how much it costs versus the next guy. Imagine, providers competing solely based on channels and price!



Doug Brott said:


> All RVU really has to do is allow for a "smart" menu overlay of some sort. So while the normal RVU stuff may be going on behind the scenes, the smart device could render something entirely different giving a different UI experience.


It certainly could, but I doubt very much that it will. Not only is that counter to what RVU really is, it is that specific functionality that they want to squash.


----------



## TheKaraokeKid

TBoneit said:


> AFAIK the largest 2.5" drive is a terabyte. I have one from WD in one of its media players. The live Hub. I also see a Intel SSD 600Gb = Dang pricy.QUOTE]
> 
> Just submitting an opportunity to change just how far you know...lol
> 
> I currently own two Seagate FreeAgent GoFlex USB 3.0 1.5TB drives. I have extracted them from their external case and put them in my Acer Aspire 9850 laptop/desktop (20" screen and 2+" thick, and holds two hard drives), so I have 3tb onboard in a laptop-style computer! I had to design a hard drive cover door, since these drives are almost twice as thick as the original drives (160GB x 2)...


----------



## jasonblair

Steve said:


> Seems like the same wiring set-up (DECA) will work for either MRV or RVU, so you should be OK either way.


The house I just bought is already wired with CAT6 in each room. Is there any reason to go with DECA when I've already got ethernet runs to every room?


----------



## Steve

jasonblair said:


> The house I just bought is already wired with CAT6 in each room. Is there any reason to go with DECA when I've already got ethernet runs to every room?


If properly configured, MRV performance should be about the same. Not sure if RVU is supported over CAT 5/6 or just DECA. Lots of good MRV info available here.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

So is anyone on here testing one of these yet?


----------



## Earl Bonovich

TheRatPatrol said:


> So is anyone on here testing one of these yet?


Yes, please post if you are...


----------



## harsh

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes, please post if you are...


Is this a test to see who didn't read their NDA?


----------



## Earl Bonovich

harsh said:


> Is this a test to see who didn't read their NDA?


Yup.


----------



## ccsoftball7

jasonblair said:


> The house I just bought is already wired with CAT6 in each room. Is there any reason to go with DECA when I've already got ethernet runs to every room?


No. I did the same, I have a run and switches to all my TV locations. I have a gigabit switch to control all the traffic. It works flawless.


----------



## jasonblair

ccsoftball7 said:


> No. I did the same, I have a run and switches to all my TV locations. I have a gigabit switch to control all the traffic. It works flawless.


I know ethernet works with MRV... But will it work with the RVU server? It seems like a waste to require new runs of Coax just to hook up the new HR34 RVU setup with DECA when I've already got CAT6 throughout the house.


----------



## Go Beavs

TheRatPatrol said:


> So is anyone on here testing one of these yet?


No, but I'll selflessly volunteer! :grin:


----------



## ndole

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes, *please post if you are...*


Or infer that you are, but you're really not. NOBODY that I know does that :lol:


----------



## inkahauts

"BattleScott" said:


> I don't think the RVU Alliance has any interest in adding this capability to RVU. That type of funtionality is really "anti-RVU". The reason RVU is being presented to the FCC is to have it approved "AS IS" as meeting the requirements of the AllVid proposal. This will allow the member companies, a veritable "who's who" of the closed STB industry, to protect the lucrative STB markets by eliminating the requirement of the open gateway device.
> 
> The open gateway requirement of AllVid is the cornerstone of the proposal and without it, the whole thing is a waste of time. I hope the FCC denies the request and continues on the current path of finally driving a wedge between the providers and the hardware required.
> 
> RVU is great and all, but it needs to stay where it is as a specific feature of those who wish to offer it, like MRV and the others. As an answer to the AllVid proposal it would just be more bad news for conusmers.


Frankly, i don't see the fcco ever driving a wedge between providers and hardware. They don't even seem to understand the concept of driving a wedge between content providers and distributors, which is far more detrimental than hardware and providers...

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## inkahauts

"jasonblair" said:


> I know ethernet works with MRV... But will it work with the RVU server? It seems like a waste to require new runs of Coax just to hook up the new HR34 RVU setup with DECA when I've already got CAT6 throughout the house.


Do you have coax going to all your tvs now hooked up to a sat box? If so, then I don't see why you would ever need to rn an additional line of new coax.. Now if your talking a new room that doesn't have sat now, but does have cat.. I would simply ask why you didn't run coax at the same time..

I have no idea if it will or won't work with Ethernet, unfortunately, but I suspect the c30s will not. I'm basing that on the fact the h25 doesn't have Ethernet. The smaller the better for them. I suspect the plan is to use a deca adapter for devices with rvu built in, if the device doesn't have moca built into it. Also, not have an Ethernet port in the c30 would reduce costs as well, which as we know is always in the minds of direcv when it comes to hardware. Why build in something if it would only work in a non supported world...

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## JosephB

inkahauts said:


> Frankly, i don't see the fcco ever driving a wedge between providers and hardware. They don't even seem to understand the concept of driving a wedge between content providers and distributors, which is far more detrimental than hardware and providers...
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


But they already have done so in the past (CableCard), and I believe they will push AllVid or a similar alternative too. It lets them put on the air of 'consumer friendliness' (which I am in favor of AllVid, I desperately wish I could buy a real TiVo and use it with whatever provider) but at the same time they don't have to break up the monopolies and vertically integrated media companies where the real money is at.


----------



## Doug Brott

JosephB said:


> [The FCC doesn't] have to break up the monopolies and vertically integrated media companies where the real money is at.


Doesn't the word "monopolies" imply that it isn't a monopoly?


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> I have no idea if it will or won't work with Ethernet, unfortunately, but I suspect the c30s will not. I'm basing that on the fact the h25 doesn't have Ethernet.


I suspect that the C30 will support Ethernet because it features it.

I don't subscribe to the theory that the C30 has much in common with the H25. I think it is more likely that the C30 is a generic RVU reference design to get RVU into homes without the purchase of a >$1,500 TV.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> I suspect that the C30 will support Ethernet because it features it.


You know what it means when you assume ..


----------



## tkrandall

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but can a HR34/client network exist on the same coax based cloud as an existing Whole-Home setup using DECA? 

My recollection is DECA for the Whole-Home setup (MRV) only uses a ~100 MHz or so wide swath of spectrum in the vicinity of 400 or 500 mhz. If that is the case, do we know what swath of spectrum will be dedicated to RVU? (I am assuming this implementation of RVU for DirecTV will use some for of MOCA/DECA.) Will it be a different portion and will it clash or not with the spectrum assigned to existing MRV setups?


----------



## Doug Brott

tkrandall said:


> Apologies if this has already been discussed, but can a HR34/client network exist on the same coax based cloud as an existing Whole-Home setup using DECA?
> 
> My recollection is DECA for the Whole-Home setup (MRV) only uses a ~100 MHz or so wide swath of spectrum in the vicinity of 400 or 500 mhz. If that is the case, do we know what swath of spectrum will be dedicated to RVU? (I am assuming this implementation of RVU for DirecTV will use some for of MOCA/DECA.) Will it be a different portion and will it clash or not with the spectrum assigned to existing MRV setups?


RVU runs on top of the physical implementation .. It doesn't matter (in the grand scheme of things) if that physical implementation is DECA or Ethernet. So in that sense, RVU (alone) doesn't use any spectrum of RF.


----------



## tkrandall

Doug Brott said:


> RVU runs on top of the physical implementation .. It doesn't matter (in the grand scheme of things) if that physical implementation is DECA or Ethernet. So in that sense, RVU (alone) doesn't use any spectrum of RF.


Forgive me for being slow. Are you saying that the transmission/encoding technology behind RVU can run on/occupy the same physical space (in this case MHz of spectrum) that is dedicated to other uses such as perhaps spectrum dedicated to SWiM channels, or DECA traffic?


----------



## Doug Brott

No, you're missing the concept altogether. 

Let me give a similar example ..

HTTP is the connection protocol used to access web content from web servers. It will run over any physical medium (fiber, copper, Ethernet, WiFi, whatever) because the underlying transmission is not really relevant (other than being fast enough or available). Once that underlying piece is there, you can connect to a web server and get content.

RVU is the same way. It is a protocol providing the delivery of video/commands it's communication is done at a higher level than the physical wiring. There needs to be some sort of TCP/IP connectivity already established (DECA, Ethernet, Wifi or even Carrier Pigeon). As long as it goes fast enough, once that physical connection is made, then RVU takes over. It connects from one IP address to another IP address over a TCP/IP connection and then communicates the video and commands between the client and the server.

RVU doesn't deal with the physical connection at all, only the virtual connection between client and server. Therefore there is nothing to address in the RF domain when talking strictly RVU.


----------



## BattleScott

tkrandall said:


> Forgive me for being slow. Are you saying that the transmission/encoding technology behind RVU can run on/occupy the same physical space (in this case MHz of spectrum) that is dedicated to other uses such as perhaps spectrum dedicated to SWiM channels, or DECA traffic?


SWiM channels are at a frequency well above the DECA frequencies so there is no issue there.

Both RVU and MRV operate at the TCP/IP level. They do not know, nor do they care how the physical ethernet connections are made between the devices. DECA is simply a method of adapting the standard twisted pair ethernet connection to a coax cable connection, it is invisible to connected devices.

In the case where both MRV and RVU might be present, they would just share the available DECA bandwidth, just as if they were connected via a typical ethernet network.


----------



## BattleScott

Doug Brott said:


> ... or even Carrier Pigeon...


Tried that once, the "collisions" were a disaster!


----------



## Alan Gordon

I haven't been feeling well most of this month, and only started feeling well last week, and so I haven't been bothering to keep up with many of the threads, including this one... until today when I read the entire thread.

Though I'm intrigued by some of the "rumors" and known facts about the HR34, I probably won't be getting one anytime soon as I suspect the HR34 will most likely be more expensive than the HR2x (DUH!!), but I was thinking about the future the other day regardless.

I am (_much to my chagrin_) planning on getting a new TV in the next couple of months, and I'm planning on getting a Samsung. After this thread was posted on the front page last week, I was curious as to how much of a price difference there was between the Samsung TV I was looking at, and the RVU models. So, I looked up what models are said to be RVU capable in Samsung's press release, and it appears the TV I was looking at _IS_ one of the RVU capable TVs: SAMSUNG HDTV

The original press release didn't state anything about those RVU TVs being 3DTVs, and looking at Samsung's webpage, there is no mention of RVU, but the model numbers appear to match up, so I'm guessing I should be RVU capable within the next month or so.

Who knows what my future holds... 

~Alan


----------



## zeagus

Any set that supports DLNA properly is at least halfway there and could fairly easily be made complaint by adding support for the RVU RUI protocol.

Ah--- Samsung Press Release from CES 2011:

_"The RVU protocol will be supported on Samsung's LED D6000, LED D6400 and LED 6420 TV products that reflect the company's commitment to delivering consumers high-quality, visually enhanced and connected entertainment experiences in their home. A RUI technology based on industry standards such as DLNA and UPnP, RVU allows a set-top box server to provide a multi-room, complete viewing experience that includes DVR services, without the need for additional set-top boxes in homes that have more than one connected TV."

"We are very happy to be working with an esteemed satellite provider like DIRECTV and provide the world first RVU service to consumers with Samsung TV," said Boo-Keun Yoon, president of Samsung's Visual Display Business. "Products developed on RVU standards, one of the major RUI standards, will help accelerate the development of features and applications that can provide our customers with a truly customizable, immersive entertainment experience that can be enjoyed from the comfort of the home."_

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/06/samsung-launching-rvu-compatible-d6000-series-tvs-in-march/


----------



## Jeremy W

zeagus said:


> Any set that supports DLNA properly is at least halfway there and could fairly easily be made RU complaint by adding support for the RVU RUI protocol.


This is absolutely true. However, it'll never happen because there is no money to be made by doing that.


----------



## zeagus

Luckily, there was for Samsung in this case or at least prestige ("First!" they shout like a blog commenter ).


----------



## xmguy

Awesome! I wish RVU TV's were out now.


----------



## Doug Brott

zeagus said:


> Luckily, there was for Samsung in this case or at least prestige ("First!" they shout like a blog commenter ).


I think Jeremy's point was that there was no incentive to update older sets (unless I read it wrong) .. Hopefully more providers will see the benefits in adding RVU as new sets roll out.


----------



## Doug Brott

xmguy said:


> Awesome! I wish RVU TV's were out now.


I thought they were already shipping, although I will admit it's not something I've paid close attention to. That being said, as far as I know there are no server boxes shipping yet. The HR34 is in the October time frame according to the press release and it will probably be the first RVU server device.


----------



## zeagus

Doug Brott said:


> I think Jeremy's point was that there was no incentive to update older sets (unless I read it wrong) .. Hopefully more providers will see the benefits in adding RVU as new sets roll out.


Right, I'm just hoping that Samsung having done it will become a marketing checkpoint for other MFGs now, as the first one can sometimes be the most difficult hurdle.


----------



## Jeremy W

Doug Brott said:


> I think Jeremy's point was that there was no incentive to update older sets (unless I read it wrong)


You read it correctly.


----------



## Jeremy W

zeagus said:


> Right, I'm just hoping that Samsung having done it will become a marketing checkpoint for other MFGs now, as the first one can sometimes be the most difficult hurdle.


Doubtful. If you look at the Best Buy page linked a few posts up, the fact that the TV is RVU-capable isn't even mentioned. If Samsung doesn't even care enough to market the fact that they've done it, why would anyone else care?


----------



## zeagus

It seems like they are marketing it to the people who care to an extent (you and I knew about it, it was all over their PR at CES and co-branded with D*), but it is doubtful that it will be all over any Big Box Store product page for it. And, yes, sadly that probably means my momentary optimism will once again be dashed


----------



## Tom Robertson

xmguy said:


> Awesome! I wish RVU TV's were out now.


Samsung's D6000 models are shipping today. RVU is expected to come later. (I have a UN55D000 and it has a fantastic picture.) 


zeagus said:


> Right, I'm just hoping that Samsung having done it will become a marketing checkpoint for other MFGs now, as the first one can sometimes be the most difficult hurdle.





Jeremy W said:


> Doubtful. If you look at the Best Buy page linked a few posts up, the fact that the TV is RVU-capable isn't even mentioned. If Samsung doesn't even care enough to market the fact that they've done it, why would anyone else care?





zeagus said:


> It seems like they are marketing it to the people who care to an extent (you and I knew about it, it was all over their PR at CES and co-branded with D*), but it is doubtful that it will be all over any Big Box Store product page for it. And, yes, sadly that probably means my momentary optimism will once again be dashed


In the next 24 months the FCC will select the generic protocol for IP based TV services in the home. Every TV will support that. If RVU is a part of that protocol, then you will see every TV list RVU (or AllVid) compliance all of a sudden. 

Right now, there is no surprise that RVU isn't listed by anyone. The compliance testing is still underway, the marketing of RVU is just starting, and the FCC needs to pick a protocol. Next year at this time you won't see "cable ready" TVs, you'll see AllVid ready (or RVU ready) or something similar.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Alan Gordon

Doug Brott said:


> xmguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome! I wish RVU TV's were out now.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought they were already shipping, although I will admit it's not something I've paid close attention to.
Click to expand...

Apparently they already are... as the TV I'm looking at (linked to above) is apparently an RVU capable TV...



Jeremy W said:


> Doubtful. If you look at the Best Buy page linked a few posts up, the fact that the TV is RVU-capable isn't even mentioned.


Neither does Samsung's own website about the TVs...

~Alan


----------



## Tom Robertson

Alan Gordon said:


> Apparently they already are... as the TV I'm looking at (linked to above) is apparently an RVU capable TV...
> 
> Neither does Samsung's own website about the TVs...
> 
> ~Alan


From what I know you should be good. I hope we'll see RVU client apps this summer. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

I don't believe the compliance testing process is even ready yet .. It's probably not yet appropriate to market any device as RVU-ready. Things are very close though.


----------



## tkrandall

BattleScott said:


> SWiM channels are at a frequency well above the DECA frequencies so there is no issue there.
> 
> Both RVU and MRV operate at the TCP/IP level. They do not know, nor do they care how the physical ethernet connections are made between the devices. DECA is simply a method of adapting the standard twisted pair ethernet connection to a coax cable connection, it is invisible to connected devices.
> 
> In the case where both MRV and RVU might be present, they would just share the available DECA bandwidth, just as if they were connected via a typical ethernet network.


Doug and Battlescott - Thanks - I think I have it now.


----------



## JosephB

Doug Brott said:


> Doesn't the word "monopolies" imply that it isn't a monopoly?


Well, I was being a bit hyperbolic, but also they do have several areas where they've allowed markets to concentrate and also have not done anything to increase competition (satellite radio, regionally in internet access, ILECs, etc)



tkrandall said:


> Forgive me for being slow. Are you saying that the transmission/encoding technology behind RVU can run on/occupy the same physical space (in this case MHz of spectrum) that is dedicated to other uses such as perhaps spectrum dedicated to SWiM channels, or DECA traffic?


No, he's just being a bit obtuse  If you had a 'legacy' MRV setup (legacy? It's only been out a few months!) and an RVU setup on the same SWiM/DECA cloud, the RVU stuff would occupy the same DECA cloud as the MRV stuff. Think of it as plugging in both an Xbox and a computer to the same Ethernet network. They don't talk to each other at all, but their traffic occupies the same physical space, same IPs, same infrastructure. So while they wouldn't 'bump heads' spectrum wise, there is the distinct possibility that you would have problems bandwidth wise, which from the standpoint of the user would be no different than if there were a spectrum crunch.


----------



## jasonblair

inkahauts said:


> Do you have coax going to all your tvs now hooked up to a sat box? If so, then I don't see why you would ever need to rn an additional line of new coax.. Now if your talking a new room that doesn't have sat now, but does have cat.. I would simply ask why you didn't run coax at the same time..


You'd have to ask the builder or the previous owners of the house. We're closing on the house on June 24th, and all I know from my walkthrough is that there is an ethernet jack in each room, but not a coax jack in each room.


----------



## Guest

Will DTV still do stand alone HD DVR's? Or will the HR34 replace the HD DVR and other HDTV's would be hooked up with a HD receiver or RVU HDTV? If DTV still used HD DVR's how small could they get, maybe H25 size?


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Will DTV still do stand alone HD DVR's? Or will the HR34 replace the HD DVR and other HDTV's would be hooked up with a HD receiver or RVU HDTV? If DTV still used HD DVR's how small could they get, maybe H25 size?


The H25 has the power supply outside of the unit because (quite frankly) is about the same size as the H25 .. If we can assume that the H25 is as small as components can get these days (That's a fairly reasonable assumption), then you'd need to add space for a second tuner and some kind of HDD. It's need to be at least 50% bigger than the H25 and probably 100% .. This without taking into consideration the additional heat dissipation requirements those devices would require.

So, simply put .. don't expect a DVR the size of the H25.


----------



## spartanstew

In 10 years they'll be the size of access card.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> The H25 has the power supply outside of the unit because (quite frankly) is about the same size as the H25 .. If we can assume that the H25 is as small as components can get these days (That's a fairly reasonable assumption), then you'd need to add space for a second tuner and some kind of HDD. It's need to be at least 50% bigger than the H25 and probably 100% .. This without taking into consideration the additional heat dissipation requirements those devices would require.
> 
> So, simply put .. don't expect a DVR the size of the H25.


What about the size of of the PS3 slim? I just got that and it dwarfs the HR24.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> What about the size of of the PS3 slim? I just got that and it dwarfs the HR24.


So you're saying the PS3 slim makes the HR24 look like a dwarf? :scratchin


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerCSM said:


> What about the size of of the PS3 slim? I just got that and it dwarfs the HR24.


Dwarfs? :lol:
PS3 Slim - 11.42 x 2.56 x 11.42 in.
HR24 - 15 x 2.2 x 9.5 in.

Not exactly dwarfing.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> What about the size of of the PS3 slim? I just got that and it dwarfs the HR24.


The PS3 is *ridiculously* more powerful than the HR24. It also has an optical drive.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> So you're saying the PS3 slim makes the HR24 look like a dwarf? :scratchin


No the HR24 is big compared to the PS3 slim and it has power supply, Bluray and hard drive all built into the unit. Sorry I terrible at grammar sometimes.


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerCSM said:


> No the HR24 is big compared to the PS3 slim and it has power supply, Bluray and hard drive all built into the unit. Sorry I terrible at grammar sometimes.


Volume is length x width x height

PS3 Slim - 11.42 x 2.56 x 11.42 in.
HR24 - 15 x 2.2 x 9.5 in.

Which is bigger?


----------



## Guest

sigma1914 said:


> Volume is length x width x height
> 
> PS3 Slim - 11.42 x 2.56 x 11.42 in.
> HR24 - 15 x 2.2 x 9.5 in.
> 
> Which is bigger?


The160gig I got looks smaller than the HR24.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> The160gig I got looks smaller than the HR24.


It's not, but it's not bigger by a whole lot. It's just the way they designed it. And all PS3s are the same size physically, regardless of the size of the hard drive.


----------



## Guest

So basically the smallest HD DVR will ever get is the HR24?


----------



## spartanstew

ever is a long time.


----------



## mobandit

CraigerCSM said:


> So basically the smallest HD DVR will ever get is the HR24?


Until they decide to start using SSD's instead of "regular" HDD's.


----------



## Guest

Unless VOD replaces the DVR then we wouldn't need the HR34 just H25's.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> Unless VOD replaces the DVR then we wouldn't need the HR34 just H25's.


That would be IPTV. And in that case, you wouldn't even need something as big as the H25. A Uverse IPTV STB (non-DVR) is only 10 x 2.25 x 8.5 inches.


----------



## LameLefty

Jeremy W said:


> The PS3 is *ridiculously* more powerful than the HR24. It also has an optical drive.


However, it does NOT have two or more satellite tuners (which do not run particularly cool), nor is it designed to read and write to the hard drive continuously for 3 - 4 years at a stretch, as is a DVR. And given what it still retails for, how long and how many redesigns has it taken Sony to bring down the unit cost to break even?

This is truly and apples-to-oranges comparison.


----------



## Jeremy W

LameLefty said:


> This is truly and apples-to-oranges comparison.


I don't agree that it's quite that drastic, but there are some fundamental differences that make direct comparisons less than helpful.


----------



## Arative

Its probably too early to know but could the RUV be used on conjunction with a windows media center HTPC?


----------



## JosephB

From a technical standpoint, they could get them pretty small. Probably the size of an Apple TV if they really wanted to (well, maybe a tad larger due to the tuners). The tradeoff is price. They may make them smaller, but everything they do to make them smaller makes them cost more money (laptop sized hard drives cost more than desktop sized, using SSD would mean even more money, etc). So, they probably have a targeted price and would likely just keep optimizing the boxes to hit that price. 

Of course if they ever wanted to do something like upgrade everyone to MPEG-4, they'd probably have a dirt cheap "regular sized" box, which after spending money on miniaturization, would be significantly less expensive.


----------



## harsh

Arative said:


> Its probably too early to know but could the RUV be used on conjunction with a windows media center HTPC?


There doesn't appear to be any mention of computer-based RVU clients. A media center PC should be able to run DIRECTV2PC for local viewing.

Full-quality content served by an HTPC is almost certainly not going to happen.


----------



## Jeremy W

harsh said:


> Full-quality content served by an HTPC is almost certainly not going to happen.


I don't know why you're so sure of that. Microsoft got Windows Media Center certified for CableCARD compatibility, so it's not exactly crazy to talk about them getting it certified for RVU as well.


----------



## JosephB

Jeremy W said:


> I don't know why you're so sure of that. Microsoft got Windows Media Center certified for CableCARD compatibility, so it's not exactly crazy to talk about them getting it certified for RVU as well.


Haven't they discontinued, or at least lessened their focus on Media Center? They're putting a lot of resources into IPTV (their platform is what AT&T uses for U-Verse), so I wouldn't expect RVU to factor in (other than they may want to have MCE serve as an RVU server). Main thing going against that, though, is that Microsoft has a gigantic "not invented here" aversion.


----------



## Laxguy

mobandit said:


> Until they decide to start using SSD's instead of "regular" HDD's.


One doesn't have to go to SSDs to decrease the footprint or volume of a sizable HDD.......


----------



## Doug Brott

The H25s are really small ..


----------



## rahlquist

My only remaining question is how many of these will Tom R. have installed once they are available? LOL


----------



## Tom Robertson

rahlquist said:


> My only remaining question is how many of these will Tom R. have installed once they are available? LOL


Not enough...


----------



## Guest

Could DTV access card slots be built into HDTV's and game consoles?


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> Could DTV access card slots be built into HDTV's and game consoles?


In theory yes. (There have been a few TVs built with DIRECTV tuners.)

At this point, with the FCC Allvid requirements, it would make more sense to use the FCC plan of having the gateway devices convert signal to IP and using that at the TVs.

Satellite tuners are expensive and generate some serious heat that needs to be controlled. So TV makers aren't likely to include them into TVs.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> In theory yes. (There have been a few TVs built with DIRECTV tuners.)
> 
> At this point, with the FCC Allvid requirements, it would make more sense to use the FCC plan of having the gateway devices convert signal to IP and using that at the TVs.
> 
> Satellite tuners are expensive and generate some serious heat that needs to be controlled. So TV makers aren't likely to include them into TVs.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I can't believe with today's technology we can't use the cabe ready tech of the 80's and make it work flawlessly with today's HD.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> I can't believe with today's technology we can't use the cabe ready tech of the 80's and make it work flawlessly with today's HD.


That was analog .. We're now digital and everyone (OK, folks that own Copyrights) wants to maintain the rights chain (DRM). Pretty big difference between the requirements then and the requirements now.


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> I can't believe with today's technology we can't use the cabe ready tech of the 80's and make it work flawlessly with today's HD.


The cable companies did not like cablecard. They made it cost prohibitive for customers or flat out lied that they couldn't be used on their networks.

Less than 500,000 cable cards were activated, according to the FCC. (With many millions of cable card ready tvs.)

So the FCC is addressing the issues (some are real concerns the cable companies have, many are not) by going to AllVid. This also puts the satellite providers on the same playing field now. AllVid ready TVs won't just connect to cable now.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> That was analog .. We're now digital and everyone (OK, folks that own Copyrights) wants to maintain the rights chain (DRM). Pretty big difference between the requirements then and the requirements now.


With today's technology they couldn't have and HD cable ready system no boxes or servers at all with great enycrpytion built in that could be way better than cable card and apply that to both cable and satellite? Cable card failed because they couldn't work out the enycrpytion hiccups for vod right?


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> With today's technology they couldn't have and HD cable ready system no boxes or servers at all with great enycrpytion built in that could be way better than cable card and apply that to both cable and satellite? Cable card failed because they couldn't work out the enycrpytion hiccups for vod right?


Yup, that is the AllVid requirement by the FCC. Miles beyond CableCard 2.0.

I think the biggest problem with cablecard was the one-way communication. You couldn't order VOD or new features via the remote control. (And one of the problems stated by the cable companies that I think was a real problem unlike some of the other issues...) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> With today's technology they couldn't have and HD cable ready system no boxes or servers at all with great enycrpytion built in that could be way better than cable card and apply that to both cable and satellite? Cable card failed because they couldn't work out the enycrpytion hiccups for vod right?


That's the whole thing we've been discussing .. A way to get from A (the provider) to B (the TV) in a standard way. Today's technology is a gazillion different flavors.

Sat Signal technology is different than Cable TV hard-wired technology. The Engineering specs are entirely different (sometimes due to the laws of physics). You certainly don't want to put every single type of receiver mechanism into a TV. Not only would it be cost prohibitive, it would probably be the size of a Mack Truck. This gateway to standard-protocol (or "new" cablecard) is really the only way that some sort of standard can be created.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> That's the whole thing we've been discussing .. A way to get from A (the provider) to B (the TV) in a standard way. Today's technology is a gazillion different flavors.
> 
> Sat Signal technology is different than Cable TV hard-wired technology. The Engineering specs are entirely different (sometimes due to the laws of physics). You certainly don't want to put every single type of receiver mechanism into a TV. Not only would it be cost prohibitive, it would probably be the size of a Mack Truck. This gateway to standard-protocol (or "new" cablecard) is really the only way that some sort of standard can be created.


Maybe instead of having one main server box a small server attached to the side of the house or in a closet for Allvid/RVU would be cool. However what happens if the server goes down? Would Allvid/RVU work with game consoles?


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Maybe instead of having one main server box a small server attached to the side of the house or in a closet for Allvid/RVU would be cool. However what happens if the server goes down? Would Allvid/RVU work with game consoles?


If it goes down, you're screwed .. You wait for a replacement.

To answer your last question .. The only thing that I know of that even works in testing is RVU with the HR34 (as noted by this thread). Everything else is on the drawing board.

Could it work with a game console? Of course, but that would require a lot of steps past today to be a reality.


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> Maybe instead of having one main server box a small server attached to the side of the house or in a closet for Allvid/RVU would be cool. However what happens if the server goes down? Would Allvid/RVU work with game consoles?


The plan is to have gateways for the services you have. DIRECTV would be a gateway, FIOS would have a gateway, most cable companies could use a generic gateway, etc.

The model is based on the broadband internet model where we have a DSL modem, cable modem, wireless, or whatever. Beyond the "modem" it is all just regular IP.

So now we'd have TV "modems" feeding into a IP based and standardized video protocol.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> The plan is to have gateways for the services you have. DIRECTV would be a gateway, FIOS would have a gateway, most cable companies could use a generic gateway, etc.
> 
> The model is based on the broadband internet model where we have a DSL modem, cable modem, wireless, or whatever. Beyond the "modem" it is all just regular IP.
> 
> So now we'd have TV "modems" feeding into a IP based and standardized video protocol.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I think I got it figured out the TV broadband modem would replace the multiswitch and hold the companies software and content? Then ethernet wires would come from the TV broadband modem to the Allvid/RVU compatible device or the HR34 and be able to access that software and content?


----------



## Kevin F

Does anyone think this could eventually allow the xbox 360 to act as a receiver? I remember Directv originally had plans on doing so a few years back.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Kevin F said:


> Does anyone think this could eventually allow the xbox 360 to act as a receiver? I remember Directv originally had plans on doing so a few years back.


Assuming someone wrote the client software for the 360 (and PS3), I expect it will be possible.

I think that in the post 2012 era, ie with Allvid in place, all boxes that survive will be able to handle nearly every video source: gateways, DLNA servers (like mediaplayer, tversity, etc.), external streaming sources (netflix, vudu, hulu, etc.), and network enabled cameras (still and video.)

Things that will likely not survive are devices that only serve one or two limited purposes (other than gateways.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> Assuming someone wrote the client software for the 360 (and PS3), I expect it will be possible.
> 
> I think that in the post 2012 era, ie with Allvid in place, all boxes that survive will be able to handle nearly every video source: gateways, DLNA servers (like mediaplayer, tversity, etc.), external streaming sources (netflix, vudu, hulu, etc.), and network enabled cameras (still and video.)
> 
> Things that will likely not survive are devices that only serve one or two limited purposes (other than gateways.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Cool I would like having the PS3 and PS4 as a DTV HD DVR. Unless that would put more wear and tear on it and be able to decode DTVs Mpeg 4 1080p video. Or get an HDTV with an ethernet adapter built in and just have the PS3 or PS4 hooked up to it as my only settop box and have VOD replace the DVR.


----------



## Jeremy W

Kevin F said:


> Does anyone think this could eventually allow the xbox 360 to act as a receiver?


It absolutely could. Will it? That's the real question. There are some big changes coming at Microsoft, so it's really hard to predict right now what direction they're going to head in.


----------



## LameLefty

This is getting way afield of the HR34, but Microsoft is already moving to provider-agnostic IPTV - they offer access to Netflix, HuluPlus and ESPN360 . . . I wouldn't be shocked to see ABC.com or some of the other services added too. Why Microsoft would forge a deal with Directv, Dish or any cableco is beyond me. If anything, such a deal runs the risk of offending and threatening unimpeded access to internet bandwidth that IPTV (and the uber-lucrative XBox Live gaming service) requires.


----------



## Guest

Does RVU use coax or ethernet to connect to other RVU devices? Also Is their a broadband gateway built into the HR34? If so, would the HR34 have WIFI that could work with a tablet?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Heres a podcast talking about RVU. Link


----------



## itzme

Didn't Microsoft used to see a service called a Windows Media Center extention? IIRC it involved a cable connection (HDMI) to the TV. Couldn't something like that become software and incorporate RVU? I could be way off base here.


----------



## harsh

CraigerCSM said:


> Does RVU use coax or ethernet to connect to other RVU devices?


All hardwired modes are likely available. I'm guessing that DECA versus Ethernet will continue to be an "or" proposition as opposed to a "both". Two LAN IP addresses for the same server is probably not a good idea.


> Also Is their a broadband gateway built into the HR34?


I can't imagine why or how given the demands of a modern broadband gateway.


> If so, would the HR34 have WIFI that could work with a tablet?


Streaming from DIRECTV is some time off (2012 at the earliest). If it turns out that all tablets/phones/media players are capable of overlaying bitmapped graphics, then it should be doable. Otherwise, graphic overlay may decisively narrow the usefulness of RVU as a hand-held protocol.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> Why Microsoft would forge a deal with Directv, Dish or any cableco is beyond me.


Microsoft joined with DIRECTV to develop the the HD-PC20 so the idea of cooperation wasn't out of the realm of possibility at one time.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> Microsoft joined with DIRECTV to develop the the HD-PC20 so the idea of cooperation wasn't out of the realm of possibility at one time.


Yeah, and how far did that go, exactly? :nono:

Now, if RVU takes off as Directv hopes, and the FCC does the right thing with regard to Allvid, then there would probably have to be a mandatory licensing scheme in place for encryption keys among service providers (cablecos, Dish, Directv) and box makers (MS, Sony, Apple, Roku, Boxee, etc.) so that the consumer could use whatever front-end hardware they preferred to interface with their TV and provide the connection to whatever provider service they chose.

Compulsory license schemes have been used for a very long time in the music business so such a system has precedent. However, in light of the completely unsettled nature of the current entertainment industry as a whole, I doubt it'll happen. Too many moving parts and too many service providers (such as Comcast) intertwined with content producers (e.g., the merger with NBC Universal), and hardware makers (Sony Music and Sony Pictures) intertwined with hardware makers (Sony Consumer Electronics). Add in the FCC's lack of political will to really defend the consumer in the face of overwhelming financial and industry pressure to do whatever the hell it wants, I don't hold faith at all.

The whole interlocking set of ownership and contractual relationships in this business makes pre-WWI Europe's interlocking set of alliances and treaties look simple in comparison.


----------



## renov8r

This info was also in the "investor call" and is even less widely discussed: wwwDOTtvpredictionsDOTcom/directvtivo052511DOThtm

Fact is there are LOTS of "average Joe" type folks that probably will upgrade to "all new HD TiVO", though these are not the kind of people that are interesting to tech forum folks they COULD be the target of REVENUE for DirecTV and thus "important" to analysts...


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> Yeah, and how far did that go, exactly? :nono:


We don't really know as neither party offered up a substantial explanation.

My suspicion is that Microsoft wanted to get WMC out the door and DIRECTV wasn't ready so the ship sailed without them. Microsoft has enough trouble meeting deadlines that they can ill afford to compound their delays with someone else's; especially where the market likely numbers in the few thousands of units.


----------



## Shades228

renov8r said:


> This info was also in the "investor call" and is even less widely discussed: wwwDOTtvpredictionsDOTcom/directvtivo052511DOThtm
> 
> Fact is there are LOTS of "average Joe" type folks that probably will upgrade to "all new HD TiVO", though these are not the kind of people that are interesting to tech forum folks they COULD be the target of REVENUE for DirecTV and thus "important" to analysts...


People in sales sell what is easy to sell. Do you think if you called in to order a DVR an agent would tell you about the TiVo if there are more costs than a standard DVR? This will be doomed if it even comes out. It's going to be half of the functionality of a normal HD DVR and will have extra costs.

Average Joe's 6 years ago would have ordered a TiVo. Today the average Joe doesn't care and wants what's going to give him the most functionality and the best pricing. That won't be a TiVo.

TiVo die hard hold ons that scream and cry about a 50SL limit will be the only people to want these or people who just want to say "I have a TiVo". There won't be any reason to have one otherwise.

I didn't even realise I was in the RVU thread. Since this doesn't have anything to do with RVU I won't reply to any response to this in this thread. In fact if a mod wants to move the 2 posts to the TiVo anticipation thread it would be better.


----------



## Doug Brott

"harsh" said:


> We don't really know as neither party offered up a substantial explanation.
> 
> My suspicion is that Microsoft wanted to get WMC out the door and DIRECTV wasn't ready so the ship sailed without them. Microsoft has enough trouble meeting deadlines that they can ill afford to compound their delays with someone else's; especially where the market likely numbers in the few thousands of units.


So harsh, let me get this straight: you think DIRECTV wasn't ready because Microsoft has trouble meeting deadlines? Interesting logic.

Truth is (and has been posted multiple times) DIRECTV was ready, Microsoft wasn't. The project was reconsidered and then abandoned. Your suspicion is simply wrong.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Doug Brott said:


> So harsh, let me get this straight: you think DIRECTV wasn't ready because Microsoft has trouble meeting deadlines? Interesting logic.
> 
> Truth is (and has been posted multiple times) DIRECTV was ready, Microsoft wasn't. The project was reconsidered and then abandoned. Your suspicion is simply wrong.


Now Doug, you know that reasoned discourse with basic applications of logic coupled with awareness of what happened with the trials discussed at green button gives you a fair advantage over posters who might not be willing to subject themselves to such discipline.


----------



## Beerstalker

Doug Brott said:


> So harsh, let me get this straight: you think DIRECTV wasn't ready because Microsoft has trouble meeting deadlines? Interesting logic.
> 
> Truth is (and has been posted multiple times) DIRECTV was ready, Microsoft wasn't. The project was reconsidered and then abandoned. Your suspicion is simply wrong.


You sure about that? I actually remember reading it the other way around. Microsoft was ready to send out the TV pack update or whatever they called it for Windows 7 and DirecTV didn't have their stuff ready in time to be a part of it. Since they missed that deadline, and Microsoft had no plans to make another update just to add DirecTV, DirecTV pulled the plug on the project.

DriecTV's own site kind of explains it that way too.

http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1428/~/hdpc-development-suspended


----------



## Tom Robertson

Beerstalker said:


> You sure about that? I actually remember reading it the other way around. Microsoft was ready to send out the TV pack update or whatever they called it for Windows 7 and DirecTV didn't have their stuff ready in time to be a part of it. Since they missed that deadline, and Microsoft had no plans to make another update just to add DirecTV, DirecTV pulled the plug on the project.
> 
> DriecTV's own site kind of explains it that way too.
> 
> http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1428/~/hdpc-development-suspended


Windows 7 had the equipment listed because it was really in testing with Microsoft. As were other Microsoft features that were supposed to be in Win Media Player update and Win7. Alas not all those features made it into the update--some of which were necessary for DIRECTV use...

But this is an RVU thread. 

Things DIRECTV requires (for RVU, set top boxes, DIRECTV2PC, and HDPC's): Copy protection, MPEG4, Copy protection, HD quality, copy protection...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

"Beerstalker" said:


> You sure about that?


Yes, I am.


----------



## JosephB

LameLefty said:


> This is getting way afield of the HR34, but Microsoft is already moving to provider-agnostic IPTV - they offer access to Netflix, HuluPlus and ESPN360 . . . I wouldn't be shocked to see ABC.com or some of the other services added too. Why Microsoft would forge a deal with Directv, Dish or any cableco is beyond me. If anything, such a deal runs the risk of offending and threatening unimpeded access to internet bandwidth that IPTV (and the uber-lucrative XBox Live gaming service) requires.


The point of AllVid (and to a lesser extent RVU) is that Microsoft wouldn't forge a deal with DirecTV or any other provider. They'd just write an AllVid (and/or RVU) client. Then, it would work with any compatible provider. That way if your provider doesn't like Microsoft, it doesn't matter. You can still make it work.

Now, that said, I don't know that Microsoft would create such a client. Their IPTV platform is what powers UVerse. What *might* happen is that they separate out the gateway for UVerse and make their IPTV client AllVid compliant, but that's pure speculation


----------



## Guest

Isn't their a new higher grade ethernet cable available that can handle hd video, audio an data? If so could also do Mpeg 4, 1080p? Would DTV be better switching to that and TV broadband modem instead of RVU? Wouldn't installs be easier that way? Replace the multiswitch with a TV broadband modem?


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Isn't their a new higher grade ethernet cable available that can handle hd video, audio an data? If so could also do Mpeg 4, 1080p? Would DTV be better switching to that and TV broadband modem instead of RVU? Wouldn't installs be easier that way? Replace the multiswitch with a TV broadband modem?


I don't get a sense that you understand how things work ..

Ethernet cable is to transmit TCP/IP packets

MPEG4 is a data format

HD Video and audio is an RF signal (either digital or analog)

Data is .. well data that gets converted to packets to transmit

RVU is data

It's like your comparing oranges to Kumquats to Rattlesnakes .. it doesn't make sense to do that.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> I don't get a sense that you understand how things work ..
> 
> Ethernet cable is to transmit TCP/IP packets
> 
> MPEG4 is a data format
> 
> HD Video and audio is an RF signal (either digital or analog)
> 
> Data is .. well data that gets converted to packets to transmit
> 
> RVU is data
> 
> It's like your comparing oranges to Kumquats to Rattlesnakes .. it doesn't make sense to do that.


http://www.pcworld.com/article/200301/new_technology_could
_replace_hdmi_with_ethernet_cables.html

http://www.hdbaset.org/


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> http://www.pcworld.com/article/200301/new_technology_could
> _replace_hdmi_with_ethernet_cables.html
> 
> http://www.hdbaset.org/


My point is that RVU is not a cable .. It's a protocol that runs on that cable.

That cable can be Ethernet, DECA, MoCA, WiFi, Powerline, whatever.

Ethernet, HDMI, Wireless Radios .. They are all things used to transmit from one point to another. RVU is one of the things that can be transmitted.

It doesn't make sense when you say "Replace RVU with an HDBaseT Ethernet Cable"


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> My point is that RVU is not a cable .. It's a protocol that runs on that cable.
> 
> That cable can be Ethernet, DECA, MoCA, WiFi, Powerline, whatever.
> 
> Ethernet, HDMI, Wireless Radios .. They are all things used to transmit from one point to another. RVU is one of the things that can be transmitted.
> 
> It doesn't make sense when you say "Replace RVU with an HDBaseT Ethernet Cable"


Simpler installs? Just have the TV broadband modem and HDBaseT Ethernet wires going to each device. Consumers could then choose which HDBaseT device they want.


----------



## dsw2112

CraigerCSM said:


> Simpler installs? Just have the TV broadband modem and HDBaseT Ethernet wires going to each device. Consumers could then choose which HDBaseT device they want.


You have to remember that this is a D* thread/forum. D* doesn't want to be in the business of running/terminating ethernet cable. When you're talking about "better" ethernet cable you would be referring to CAT6 and above. CAT6 isn't all that easy to terminate compared to RG6.

As Doug mentioned RVU can utilize many mediums of transport. D* is choosing RG6 since their installers are already trained to run/install it, and most folks don't have a solid ethernet infrastructure. If RVU catches on you'll see different companies implement different transport mediums. It's kind of like the ethernet - DECA debate; who really cares how the data gets from point A to point B?


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> Simpler installs? Just have the TV broadband modem and HDBaseT Ethernet wires going to each device. Consumers could then choose which HDBaseT device they want.


Right now, with coax running throughout many homes in America and almost all new homes, MoCA is actually the simplest install. It's there, it works, it's ready to go. 

And HDMI over ethernet has not yet been adopted widely. It might not survive. (RVU at least is a little farther along, if I recall correctly and it also might not survive.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Simpler installs? Just have the TV broadband modem and HDBaseT Ethernet wires going to each device. Consumers could then choose which HDBaseT device they want.


The coax already exists in most cases .. The entire reason to use DECA in the first place. But even if we go out on a limb and say sure, DIRECTV install fast whooptee Ethernet cable throughout the house .. RVU or Allvid would still work over those wires. You said "instead of RVU" when talking about the cable .. Again .. what you said doesn't make sense.

If you're saying use Ethernet instead of DECA, that's an entirely different discussion. The simple answer is for DIRECTV to let the techs who are already trained to install coax to continue installing coax. There's really no reason to switch it over to Ethernet as that will only drive up the cost and provide zero benefit.


----------



## Guest

What about turning the HR34 with RVU into the size of a residential gateway? That would use coax and would be installed next to the multiswitch and then have HDTV's, game consoles, PC's and Bluray players with RVU built in. I know Samsung has RVU HDTV's coming soon.


----------



## ptrubey

Please don't keep talking about DECA versus twisted pair ethernet. This nonsensical debate has taken over too many other threads already.

The irony for those old enough to remember is that Ethernet started life being transported over big honking 50 ohm coax cable. It was a very thick, typically yellow coax that you had to vampire tap into (ie. cut the insulation and dialectric with a corer tool and connect a transceiver directly to the copper signal cable in the center). If I remember correctly, the specs allowed for 1000m distance on a single cable that could be tapped many many times. It was a good topology for university campuses and big companies which is where it was most often used. A bit later, a much smaller diameter 50 ohm coax cable was allowed that used bnc connectors. Both these topologies were a daisy chain, which was the main problem - a bad bnc and the entire network went down with the poor network tech going from bnc to bnc trying to isolate the problem (I used to be one of the those poor techs!).

Anyhoo, today's twisted pair ethernet, stuck at 100m distance, but in a star topology, isn't the be all and end all. It works fine for many applications, but creating an ethernet that runs on 75 ohm coax with branches allowed is a great innovation and should be applauded.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> What about turning the HR34 with RVU into the size of a residential gateway? That would use coax and would be installed next to the multiswitch and then have HDTV's, game consoles, PC's and Bluray players with RVU built in. I know Samsung has RVU HDTV's coming soon.


Think .. HR24 on steroids and you'll have the size .. Not gonna change much from that over the next few years I suspect.


----------



## dsw2112

CraigerCSM said:


> What about turning the HR34 with RVU into the size of a residential gateway? That would use coax and would be installed next to the multiswitch and then have HDTV's, game consoles, PC's and Bluray players with RVU built in. I know Samsung has RVU HDTV's coming soon.


I'm not sure what you mean by the size of a residential gateway, but the rest of your post is essentialy how the HR34 will be used. Anybody that wishes to come up with a RVU compatible receiver (Tv makers, computers, game consoles) would be free to manufacture them.

FYI the HR34 will not be compatible with a multiswitch, it's SWM only


----------



## Guest

dsw2112 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by the size of a residential gateway, but the rest of your post is essentialy how the HR34 will be used. Anybody that wishes to come up with a RVU compatible receiver (Tv makers, computers, game consoles) would be free to manufacture them.
> 
> FYI the HR34 will not be compatible with a multiswitch, it's SWM only


Aren't people growing tired of having multilple settops in a media center and that is the main reason for RVU? I was thinking of a do it all HD media server with the HD DVR built in stored in a central location in the house say in a basement next to the electrical panel or in a closet? Maybe the HR34 should be like a mintower allthough that wouldn't work next to an electrical panel. Or have the server the size of a broadband modem. with an HD DVR built in?


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerCSM said:


> Aren't people growing tired of having multilple settops in a media center and that is the main reason for RVU? I was thinking of a do it all HD media server with the HD DVR built in stored in a central location in the house say in a basement next to the electrical panel or in a closet? Maybe the HR34 should be like a mintower allthough that wouldn't work next to an electrical panel. Or have the server the size of a broadband modem. with an HD DVR built in?


No...because when one thing breaks, then what? If my HR24 craps out, then I can use my BluRay player for a day to watch discs or Netflix.


----------



## dsw2112

CraigerCSM said:


> Aren't people growing tired of having multilple settops in a media center and that is the main reason for RVU? I was thinking of a do it all HD media server with the HD DVR built in stored in a central location in the house say in a basement next to the electrical panel or in a closet? Maybe the HR34 should be like a mintower allthough that wouldn't work next to an electrical panel. Or have the server the size of a broadband modem. with an HD DVR built in?


Well, you have to think what would make business sense to a company. D* is in the sat Tv business, so a do-it-all server would be a tough sell to the boss. The main flaw of any all-in-one is also the loss of any intertwined component. Who wants to buy a brand new server when the Blu Ray dies? And repair typically isn't a viable option on all-in-one's.

I don't know that a minitower design would be all that beneficial; currently the HR34 can fit almost anywhere (with the added benefit of locating at a Tv if you wish.) In addition, there aren't many electronic devices that are recommended to be located near the power panel. As for your last question; a server with 5 sat tuners and a hard drive would not fit in a chassis the size of a broadband modem (in this day and age.)


----------



## Guest

sigma1914 said:


> No...because when one thing breaks, then what? If my HR24 craps out, then I can use my BluRay player for a day to watch discs or Netflix.


Wouldn't be the same thing if you just had one HDTV and and one HD DVR abd that crapped out on you?


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> Aren't people growing tired of having multilple settops in a media center and that is the main reason for RVU? I was thinking of a do it all HD media server with the HD DVR built in stored in a central location in the house say in a basement next to the electrical panel or in a closet? Maybe the HR34 should be like a mintower allthough that wouldn't work next to an electrical panel. Or have the server the size of a broadband modem. with an HD DVR built in?


Depending on how many posts per page you have in your settings, you are quite a few pages behind the discussion. We covered this in depth already. 

Quick summary:
An HR as in a DVR won't get much smaller anytime soon. The high performance disk drives need lots of air circulation to keep cool. Plus you can't cram them in with satellite tuners which run pretty hot. So the DVR won't get smaller for now.

A pure gateway device, that takes in satellite signals and produces 6 IPTV streams as per the FCC requirements, has to have 6 satellite tuners. The H25 is the smallest form we've seen so far with the power supply outside the case and only 3 tuners. So think of 2 of those stacked and that would be about the minimal size for a gateway device with today's technology. Roughly about the size of two normal cable modem/routers give or take.

And that is what the FCC Allvid requirement is all about. Gateways to video via IP. RVU is the DIRECTV suggested technology to fulfill the AllVid requirements since the FCC still has much specification work todo with AllVid.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> Wouldn't be the same thing if you just had one HDTV and and one HD DVR abd that crapped out on you?


But that is a different scenario. I have many more than one HDTV. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

dsw2112 said:


> Well, you have to think what would make business sense to a company. D* is in the sat Tv business, so a do-it-all server would be a tough sell to the boss. The main flaw of any all-in-one is also the loss of any intertwined component. Who wants to buy a brand new server when the Blu Ray dies? And repair typically isn't a viable option on all-in-one's.
> 
> I don't know that a minitower design would be all that beneficial; currently the HR34 can fit almost anywhere, and there aren't many electronic devices that are recommended to be located near the power panel. As for your last question; a server with 5 sat tuners and a hard drive would not fit in a chassis the size of a broadband modem in this day and age.


Did I just describe what Allvid is with my last post?


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> Did I just describe what Allvidi is with my last post?


Almost. Allvid is not one "gateway to all services" but several mini gateways, one for each service as needed.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerCSM said:


> Wouldn't be the same thing if you just had one HDTV and and one HD DVR abd that crapped out on you?


Huh? If all you have is a TV & DVR, then a multipurpose box means nothing to you. This 1 box idea you have is turning into your old browser enabled DVR idea you were persistent about. :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott

Tom Robertson said:


> Almost. Allvid is not one "gateway to all services" but several mini gateways, one for each service as needed.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Exactly .. The provider builds the gateway and understands the protocols it receives .. But then "retransmits" throughout the house in a standard/documented format so that anyone would build a client ..


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> Depending on how many posts per page you have in your settings, you are quite a few pages behind the discussion. We covered this in depth already.
> 
> Quick summary:
> An HR as in a DVR won't get much smaller anytime soon. The high performance disk drives need lots of air circulation to keep cool. Plus you can't cram them in with satellite tuners which run pretty hot. So the DVR won't get smaller for now.
> 
> A pure gateway device, that takes in satellite signals and produces 6 IPTV streams as per the FCC requirements, has to have 6 satellite tuners. The H25 is the smallest form we've seen so far with the power supply outside the case and only 3 tuners. So think of 2 of those stacked and that would be about the minimal size for a gateway device with today's technology. Roughly about the size of two normal cable modem/routers give or take.
> 
> And that is what the FCC Allvid requirement is all about. Gateways to video via IP. RVU is the DIRECTV suggested technology to fulfill the AllVid requirements since the FCC still has much specification work todo with AllVid.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Thanks for the summary. I forgot about the heat issue, electronics should be allowed to breath, especially having ventiilation in media centers for settops.


----------



## Davenlr

Tom Robertson said:


> The H25 is the smallest form we've seen so far with the power supply outside the case and only 3 tuners.


??? The H25 has three tuners? Im confused.


----------



## Doug Brott

sigma1914 said:


> Huh? If all you have is a TV & DVR, then a multipurpose box means nothing to you. This 1 box idea you have is turning into your old browser enabled DVR idea you were persistent about. :lol:


Yeah, @ 5 tuners, a single HR34 connected to the single TV would kill a lot of birds with that one stone.


----------



## Guest

sigma1914 said:


> Huh? If all you have is a TV & DVR, then a multipurpose box means nothing to you. This 1 box idea you have is turning into your old browser enabled DVR idea you were persistent about. :lol:


No I want a tablet now. I still want to just have two HDTV's and a PS3 Slim as my only settop, along with DTV.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Davenlr said:


> ??? The H25 has three tuners? Im confused.


Smak! Sorry, it has 2. My bad.

Thanks for politely keeping me honest. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> Smak! Sorry, it has 2. My bad.


But the second one isn't a "real" tuner.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Jeremy W said:


> But the second one isn't a "real" tuner.


I almost made that point in both my original mistake and my correction. In some units, the "extra tuner" for the guide data was a more limited tuner as it only had to look at guide data, not the whole spectrum of Ka and Ku streams.

The reason I didn't bother is that from a size (and heat) standpoint, the new dual tuner chips are pretty much fully capable and pretty small so in reality 3 dual chips "should" fit inside a unit twice the size of the H25. (Giving everyone the 6 IP streams needed.)

Now, will the Gateway need a 7th tuner for guide data? Probably... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## NR4P

Tom Robertson said:


> Smak! Sorry, it has 2. My bad.
> 
> Thanks for politely keeping me honest.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom





Jeremy W said:


> But the second one isn't a "real" tuner.


Now we really going to confuse people. Since we've all been taught to count H's as one tuner devices for the SWM counting.


----------



## Guest

Could they get HD DVR's and the HR34 to the size of the new Apple TV box, Boxee or Roku boxes?


----------



## Laxguy

CraigerCSM said:


> Could they get HD DVR's and the HR34 to the size of the new Apple TV box, Boxee or Roku boxes?


Not 'soon', but some day, for sure. All's needed is time and money! Time to keep shrinking components, boosting technology, lowering costs of them due to better manufacturing processes and much higher volume.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Could they get HD DVR's and the HR34 to the size of the new Apple TV box, Boxee or Roku boxes?


Please read through Moore's Law for a better understanding on component size.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> So harsh, let me get this straight: you think DIRECTV wasn't ready because Microsoft has trouble meeting deadlines? Interesting logic.


Interesting twist of what I said.


> Truth is (and has been posted multiple times) DIRECTV was ready, Microsoft wasn't. The project was reconsidered and then abandoned. Your suspicion is simply wrong.


Interesting twist on what happened. If DIRECTV was ready and willing, why didn't support get included? Microsoft obviously doesn't have many reservations about releasing stuff that isn't ready for prime time and a few thousand HDPC-20 users doesn't amount to a hill of beans in their grand scheme; especially if they can blame the problem on DIRECTV.

Engagdet's Ben Drawbaugh believed that DIRECTV was the hold-out.


Ben Drawbaugh said:


> One thing is for sure, we weren't able to track down a single person who said they believed it was in testing or that Microsoft had any plans to test it in the next year. The real mystery is DirecTV's motivation to kill this thing since people in the know claim it worked great.


In a post in August of 2009, you suggested it was probably a "tactical" decision on DIRECTV's part.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2182103&postcount=6

Then there was the announcement that The Head Honcho posted:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1914292&postcount=242

Missing the boat is not typically something that happens when you're truly ready.

If a DIRECTV spokesman is quoted as saying that DIRECTV missed the release, that's clearly not a case of Microsoft missing something (other than DIRECTV's contribution). DIRECTV either didn't want it or couldn't make it happen. In either case, I don't think it is fair to blame Microsoft.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh .. think what you want. I know exactly what happened. However, I'm not at liberty to say it. So if you don't believe me, then we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Unfortunately there has been some munging of the HDPC history, folding of events so that to truly clean this up is the topic of another thread.

So let us drop that topic as this is, after all, the RVU Field trial thread.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts

I for one don;t get why Directv doesn't put 8 tuners in the HR34 instead of 6. Two more would tap out a swimLNB or regular swim multiswitch. This would give them the most flexibility for customers and future upgrades of the number of tvs a customer has.

As it stands now, I thought they where putting in 5, but i guess its 6 now? Plus the guide data one, so technically 7? Or is it 5, plus the guide data tuner so technically its 6,but for viewing its 5?


----------



## Tom Robertson

The FCC Gateway spec is for 6 tuners, sorry if that confused the HR34 situation.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## LameLefty

Doug Brott said:


> harsh .. think what you want. I know exactly what happened. However, I'm not at liberty to say it. So if you don't believe me, then we will have to agree to disagree.


Don't worry, Doug. Everyone knows harsh already knows everything there is to know about Directv, its products, services, policies, practices, and future plans. After all, he talks so authoritatively about them all the time . . . :lol:


----------



## Guest

Is the HR-34 next line in succession after the HR-24 or will their be an HR-25 stand alone HD DVR and keep making stand alone HD DVR's?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

inkahauts said:


> I for one don;t get why Directv doesn't put 8 tuners in the HR34 instead of 6. Two more would tap out a swimLNB or regular swim multiswitch. This would give them the most flexibility for customers and future upgrades of the number of tvs a customer has.
> 
> As it stands now, I thought they where putting in 5, but i guess its 6 now? Plus the guide data one, so technically 7? Or is it 5, plus the guide data tuner so technically its 6,but for viewing its 5?


Will a AM21 add 2 if you hook it to the HR34?


----------



## ptrubey

So, do we know the specs for the HR34 yet? I guess the ones that matter are number of simultaneous programs can it record, number of clients it can feed (simultaneous and total number), and hours of HD programming it can hold (assume MPEG4). While I'm asking, does anyone know the max. distance a DECA coax can be?


----------



## Jeremy W

inkahauts said:


> As it stands now, I thought they where putting in 5, but i guess its 6 now? Plus the guide data one, so technically 7? Or is it 5, plus the guide data tuner so technically its 6,but for viewing its 5?


It's five tuners plus the guide tuner, so technically six. But of course, it only uses five SWM channels since the SWM guide channel is shared.

Is everyone confused yet? :lol:


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> Is the HR-34 next line in succession after the HR-24 or will their be an HR-25 stand alone HD DVR and keep making stand alone HD DVR's?


I see no reason for there not to be an HR25. The HR34 is a different beast.


----------



## TBlazer07

JoeTheDragon said:


> Will a AM21 add 2 if you hook it to the HR34?


The AM21 doesn't add 2 additional tuners (for simultaneous recording purposes) to any current model HR so I wouldn't think it would be any different with any new models after the HR24.


----------



## Guest

Can the HR34 be placed in any room or would installers like it in the family room? Is it designed for swim only?


----------



## Scott Kocourek

CraigerCSM said:


> Can the HR34 be placed in any room or would installers like it in the family room? Is it designed for swim only?


Really?  Why would the installer care if it is in the Living room or bedroom?


----------



## harsh

CraigerCSM said:


> Can the HR34 be placed in any room or would installers like it in the family room?


As all communication is handled via the network, it shouldn't matter where the HR34 is installed. I would imagine that it will be within a few feet of an HDMI capable TV.

I think it is folly to assume that this client-server setup will often be part of a larger DIRECTV installation.


----------



## BudShark

harsh said:


> As all communication is handled via the network, it shouldn't matter where the HR34 is installed. I would imagine that it will be within a few feet of an HDMI capable TV.
> 
> I think it is folly to assume that this client-server setup will often be part of a larger DIRECTV installation.


I think it is folly to not make that assumption. Its the most technically advanced receiver DirecTV will have and eliminates recording conflicts - regardless of if you use it as an RVU server or not. So why wouldn't I want it in a larger setup?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Scott Kocourek said:


> Really?  Why would the installer care if it is in the Living room or bedroom?


I agree. I would think it shouldn't matter where the unit is.

Mike


----------



## NR4P

harsh said:


> I think it is folly to assume that this client-server setup will often be part of a larger DIRECTV installation.


I have a different point of view.
For anyone with more than one DVR, the savings in fewer larger set top boxes and hard drives and tuners have to a significant cost savings to Directv.

I suspect the breakeven points are 1 DVR plus two or three HD receivers (i.e. H25) and 2 DVR's plus one HD receiver. Larger installations with an HR34 and C30 clients could save Directv a ton of hardware costs on new installations.

Not to ignore the competitive edge where uVerse claims 4 simulatenous recordings and Directv can then claim 5.


----------



## Guest

Scott Kocourek said:


> Really?  Why would the installer care if it is in the Living room or bedroom?


Sorry I asked. I just thought they would prefer the server hooked to the main TV that everybody watched. Wouldn't it be strange if they wanted the HR34 say in the master bedroom? You tell DTV you dont need any extra boxes because the family room equipment would be RVU compatible?

I wonder how a game console or PC would work with RVU? Would it be through DNLA or an RVU adapter?


----------



## Guest

NR4P said:


> I have a different point of view.
> For anyone with more than one DVR, the savings in fewer larger set top boxes and hard drives and tuners have to a significant cost savings to Directv.
> 
> I suspect the breakeven points are 1 DVR plus two or three HD receivers (i.e. H25) and 2 DVR's plus one HD receiver. Larger installations with an HR34 and C30 clients could save Directv a ton of hardware costs on new installations.
> 
> Not to ignore the competitive edge where uVerse claims 4 simulatenous recordings and Directv can then claim 5.


I wonder if DTV would still charge a mirroring fee for other RVU clients?


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Sorry I asked. I just thought they would prefer the server hooked to the main TV that everybody watched. Wouldn't it be strange if they wanted the HR34 say in the master bedroom? You tell DTV you dont need any extra boxes because the family room equipment would be RVU compatible?


Except that comment makes a lot of assumptions about where people watch TV. I'd be willing to be that for some people their main TV is in their bedroom. The real answer is that DIRECTV will install it at the location that makes the most sense for the customer. Some people may want the server hidden in a closet.



> I wonder how a game console or PC would work with RVU? Would it be through DNLA or an RVU adapter?


The Game Console company would have to make a client that talks RVU to server. No Game Console company has announced that they are going to be doing this as far as I know. An adapter wouldn't make sense in this scenario as the adapter would go directly to the TV and bypass the Game Console altogether.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> I wonder if DTV would still charge a mirroring fee for other RVU clients?


We all wonder that ...


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> Except that comment makes a lot of assumptions about where people watch TV. I'd be willing to be that for some people their main TV is in their bedroom. The real answer is that DIRECTV will install it at the location that makes the most sense for the customer. Some people may want the server hidden in a closet.
> 
> The Game Console company would have to make a client that talks RVU to server. No Game Console company has announced that they are going to be doing this as far as I know. An adapter wouldn't make sense in this scenario as the adapter would go directly to the TV and bypass the Game Console altogether.


How does the RVU adapter work in a HDTV? Does the cable plug right into the HDTV without needing an access card?


----------



## Davenlr

Doug Brott said:


> We all wonder that ...


I am one of those you mentioned that would need it placed in the central media closet with my other devices.

Currently, Xfinity charges me $8.50 per HD outlet (SD is free). I can have 1,2 or 4 HD tuners per outlet, depending on what device I hook to it. I would expect DirecTv would probably have a way to send a signal to the HR34 to "enable/disable" tuners. I would further predict they will give you the first one or two tuners free, and charge for each additional tuner you want activated. Trying to charge per RVU client would be rather difficult to determine would it not, unless it was one they supply?

Somehow, I really do not see this being a cost saving opportunity for customers with multiple tuners.


----------



## Davenlr

CraigerCSM said:


> How does the RVU adapter work in a HDTV? Does the cable plug right into the HDTV without needing an access card?


If it supposed to work with any third party RVU client, it couldnt require an access card other than the one in the gateway. It will probably be limited to HDMI with HDCP.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> How does the RVU adapter work in a HDTV? Does the cable plug right into the HDTV without needing an access card?


If it's built into the TV .. It's inside the TV. It will act like any other input HDMI, Component, Composite, etc. I believe the Samsung models have Ethernet ports, so the input would be Ethernet. There is no access card associated with an RVU client .. That's the whole point.

In DIRECTV land, you would either need to connect the HR34 directly to your router and then your Samsung TV directly into the router (all via Ethernet) .. Or, you could put possibly put a wireless gaming adapter @ the Samsung side or, what DIRECTV will likely be installing a DECA adapter to convert from DECA back to Ethernet.

The bottom line is that there is a direct input cable and Access Cards aren't part of the RVU client at all ..


----------



## Guest

Davenlr said:


> If it supposed to work with any third party RVU client, it couldnt require an access card other than the one in the gateway. It will probably be limited to HDMI with HDCP.


Would a RVU client need a coax cable with a Broadcom chip in it? The PS3 can find other media servers I wonder if it could find the HR34?


----------



## Doug Brott

Davenlr said:


> I am one of those you mentioned that would need it placed in the central media closet with my other devices.
> 
> Currently, Xfinity charges me $8.50 per HD outlet (SD is free). I can have 1,2 or 4 HD tuners per outlet, depending on what device I hook to it. I would expect DirecTv would probably have a way to send a signal to the HR34 to "enable/disable" tuners. I would further predict they will give you the first one or two tuners free, and charge for each additional tuner you want activated. Trying to charge per RVU client would be rather difficult to determine would it not, unless it was one they supply?
> 
> Somehow, I really do not see this being a cost saving opportunity for customers with multiple tuners.


Very interesting thought .. This may be the model DIRECTV chooses since controlling the number and type of clients will be more difficult, DIRECTV very well may choose to put the gate on the tuner side. I hadn't really thought of that. I wouldn't expect the box to cost more, but the additional tuner fees could ramp up the per-month costs of the box. Since new boxes are $6/month mirroring fee, each additional tuner may end up being $3/month. 3 extra tuners (to get to 5 total) would mean $9/month extra service fees.

I could see this as a path DIRECTV would choose ... but really, I don't know what the pricing model will be.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Would a RVU client need a coax cable with a Broadcom chip in it?


coax cables do not have chips inside them .. They are just copper and plastic.


----------



## Guest

Davenlr said:


> I am one of those you mentioned that would need it placed in the central media closet with my other devices.
> 
> Currently, Xfinity charges me $8.50 per HD outlet (SD is free). I can have 1,2 or 4 HD tuners per outlet, depending on what device I hook to it. I would expect DirecTv would probably have a way to send a signal to the HR34 to "enable/disable" tuners. I would further predict they will give you the first one or two tuners free, and charge for each additional tuner you want activated. Trying to charge per RVU client would be rather difficult to determine would it not, unless it was one they supply?
> 
> Somehow, I really do not see this being a cost saving opportunity for customers with multiple tuners.


You might as well just have DTV boxes hooked up to each TV if DTV did charge a mirroring fee for each RVU client. Unless it would be worth the extra cost to get rid of the other DTV boxes in the home?


----------



## ndole

CraigerCSM said:


> Would a RVU client need a coax cable with a Broadcom chip in it? The PS3 can find other media servers I wonder if it could find the HR34?


No. But I heard that you can stream shows to your PSP :grin:


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> coax cables do not have chips inside them .. They are just copper and plastic.


Sorry I meant the RVU client box would need to have the Broadcom chip in it.


----------



## Doug Brott

Don't know that any particular chip is a requirement ... RVU is a protocol so a certain feature set will need to be supported, but as long as the result is that it does what it's supposed to do then I suspect it will be fine.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

BudShark said:


> and eliminates recording conflicts


Unless you're trying to record more then 5 things at once. 


Davenlr said:


> I am one of those you mentioned that would need it placed in the central media closet with my other devices.
> 
> Currently, Xfinity charges me $8.50 per HD outlet (SD is free). I can have 1,2 or 4 HD tuners per outlet, depending on what device I hook to it. I would expect DirecTv would probably have a way to send a signal to the HR34 to "enable/disable" tuners. I would further predict they will give you the first one or two tuners free, and charge for each additional tuner you want activated. Trying to charge per RVU client would be rather difficult to determine would it not, unless it was one they supply?
> 
> Somehow, I really do not see this being a cost saving opportunity for customers with multiple tuners.





Doug Brott said:


> Very interesting thought .. This may be the model DIRECTV chooses since controlling the number and type of clients will be more difficult, DIRECTV very well may choose to put the gate on the tuner side. I hadn't really thought of that. I wouldn't expect the box to cost more, but the additional tuner fees could ramp up the per-month costs of the box. Since new boxes are $6/month mirroring fee, each additional tuner may end up being $3/month. 3 extra tuners (to get to 5 total) would mean $9/month extra service fees.
> 
> I could see this as a path DIRECTV would choose ... but really, I don't know what the pricing model will be.


I just hope they don't make you actually have to get the RVU clients in order to activate all 5 tuners. I don't need additional outlets, I just want the 5 tuners to avoid conflicts. And I hope it will be able to stream from my other DVR's, I don't want to have to get rid of those yet.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> Don't know that any particular chip is a requirement ... RVU is a protocol so a certain feature set will need to be supported, but as long as the result is that it does what it's supposed to do then I suspect it will be fine.


Would an RVU client need to have a satellite tuner input?


----------



## ndole

CraigerCSM said:


> Would an RVU client need to have a satellite tuner input?


No. That's the whole point. The tuners are in the server


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Would an RVU client need to have a satellite tuner input?


Why? All of the Satellite stuff is in the server .. The server communicates with the client over TCP/IP .. Just like your computer browser communicates with DBSTalk over TCP/IP - just with a different protocol.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> Why? All of the Satellite stuff is in the server .. The server communicates with the client over TCP/IP .. Just like your computer browser communicates with DBSTalk over TCP/IP - just with a different protocol.


So the RVU adapter communicates over TCP/IP?


----------



## Davenlr

CraigerCSM said:


> So the RVU adapter communicates over TCP/IP?


Its is basically the same thing as watching TV from Hulu, Netflix, or any of those services. Only instead of pulling the data from the internet, it would pull it from your HR34.


----------



## Guest

Davenlr said:


> Its is basically the same thing as watching TV from Hulu, Netflix, or any of those services. Only instead of pulling the data from the internet, it would pull it from your HR34.


Sorry, I guess I am still confused how the RVU client hooks up is it through coax, ethernet or wifi and that communicates to the HR34?


----------



## dsw2112

CraigerCSM said:


> Sorry, I guess I am still confused how the RVU client hooks up is it through coax, ethernet or wifi and that communicates to the HR34?


This might confuse you more; coax to the location of the RVU client (via Deca,) then Deca dongle to ethernet patch cable (if RVU client is ethernet only), or coax plugs directly into RVU client (if client has Deca built-in.)


----------



## Davenlr

CraigerCSM said:


> Sorry, I guess I am still confused how the RVU client hooks up is it through coax, ethernet or wifi and that communicates to the HR34?


Anything that can carry TCP/IP, depending on the device. If it is a TV, its going to be wired ethernet. If its a DirecTv client, who knows if it will use ethernet or coax or both. TCP/IP can be used wirelessly, with ethernet, or with coax. I would guess it will depend on the device.

Also, I do not know if the HR34 will contain its own router, or require a third party router. AT*T uses a router built into their gateway, and allows connections via ethernet or coax I think.


----------



## Guest

Davenlr said:


> Anything that can carry TCP/IP, depending on the device. If it is a TV, its going to be wired ethernet. If its a DirecTv client, who knows if it will use ethernet or coax or both. TCP/IP can be used wirelessly, with ethernet, or with coax. I would guess it will depend on the device.
> 
> Also, I do not know if the HR34 will contain its own router, or require a third party router. AT*T uses a router built into their gateway, and allows connections via ethernet or coax I think.


So the RVU compatible HDTV's would be hooked up with ethernet? I wonder what input game consoles and PC's would use?


----------



## RobertE

CraigerCSM said:


> *Sorry, I guess I am still confused* how the RVU client hooks up is it through coax, ethernet or wifi and that communicates to the HR34?


I couldn't tell.


----------



## dsw2112

CraigerCSM said:


> ...I wonder what input game consoles and PC's would use?


Last I checked neither had Deca built in so....


----------



## Guest

I think I get it now that every RVU client would have have to be hooked up using ethernet and either use either a DECA adapter or built in DECA adapter. Then RVU clients that aren't DTV DECA compatible would have to software built in that would be able to communicate with the HR34?


----------



## dsw2112

CraigerCSM said:


> ...Then RVU clients that aren't DTV DECA compatible would have to software built in that would be able to communicate with the HR34?


All clients (regardless of Deca) have to "speak" RVU to communicate with the server.


----------



## Davenlr

dsw2112 said:


> All clients (regardless of Deca) have to "speak" RVU to communicate with the server.


Are there currently any devices besides the Samsung TV's that have RVU protocol built in? I can see Sony adding it to PS3 if its not already there, but Im guessing it would not work with current generation Roku's and SageTV type boxes that do not contain any HDCP protection. Im almost sure DirecTv isnt going to allow a HD video stream out of their gateway without requiring it to be secure all the way to the monitor.


----------



## Guest

Davenlr said:


> Are there currently any devices besides the Samsung TV's that have RVU protocol built in? I can see Sony adding it to PS3 if its not already there, but Im guessing it would not work with current generation Roku's and SageTV type boxes that do not contain any HDCP protection. Im almost sure DirecTv isnt going to allow a HD video stream out of their gateway without requiring it to be secure all the way to the monitor.


My PS3 Slim can see other PC's in the house when they are on. When someone gets on a PC and I am on my PS3 a message comes up now connected to media server or something like that. That makes me wonder if the PS3 could find the HR34 or would it still have to have a special program on the PS3 to find the HR34? I wonder what PC's would do about copy protection with RVU? Would a Deca adapter have to be hooked up to the PS3? Sony has partnered with DirecTV RVU.


----------



## Davenlr

No. Just ignore DECA. DECA is used on current equipment. Deca transmits TCP/IP over coax ALONG with the SWM satellite video channel. There will be no SWM satellite video channel, as it will be converted to TCP/IP, so I see no reason for a TCP/IP to TCP/IP converter. It would probably be cheaper to use a standard COAX network card, if you use coax at all. I would prefer straight gigabit ethernet.

THe PS3 would probably see the HR34, but like any other DirecTv box now, it would not be able to access it unless the PS3 had an RVU app (if its not already on the box). I would expect the PS3 to be one of the first to support it though, since Sony is already heavily DRM'ed, and can easily install apps, and is a partner. Hoping so anyway, since I already have a PS3


----------



## Guest

Davenlr said:


> No. Just ignore DECA. DECA is used on current equipment. Deca transmits TCP/IP over coax ALONG with the SWM satellite video channel. There will be no SWM satellite video channel, as it will be converted to TCP/IP, so I see no reason for a TCP/IP to TCP/IP converter. It would probably be cheaper to use a standard COAX network card, if you use coax at all. I would prefer straight gigabit ethernet.
> 
> THe PS3 would probably see the HR34, but like any other DirecTv box now, it would not be able to access it unless the PS3 had an RVU app (if its not already on the box). I would expect the PS3 to be one of the first to support it though, since Sony is already heavily DRM'ed, and can easily install apps, and is a partner. Hoping so anyway, since I already have a PS3


Would their need to be an ethernet jack in the room where the PS3 is or would it hook up to HR34 over WIFI or DNLA using an RVU App?


----------



## Davenlr

CraigerCSM said:


> Would their need to be an ethernet jack in the room where the PS3 is or would it hook up to HR34 over WIFI or DNLA using an RVU App?


Yes, or a fast wireless connection to your router (unless they are going to require you use a router built into the gateway).


----------



## Guest

Davenlr said:


> Yes, or a fast wireless connection to your router (unless they are going to require you use a router built into the gateway).


The PS3's wifi would sync to the HR34's wifi router if it had one, or a wifi gateway router hooked up to the HR34? I wonder how the pq would be over wifi, the same as on the HR34? I wonder why DNLA couldn't be used instead of an RVU App? Would the PS3's hard driive interfere with the HR34's with recording TV Shows?


----------



## ndole

CraigerCSM said:


> The PS3's wifi would sync to the HR34's wifi router if it had one, or a wifi gateway router hooked up to the HR34? I wonder how the pq would be over wifi, the same as on the HR34? *I wonder why DNLA couldn't be used instead of an RVU App?*


Er, bc the HR34 is an RVU device?


----------



## Guest

ndole_mbnd said:


> Er, bc the HR34 is an RVU device?


I found the RVU Alliance home page it work with DNLA but DNLA DMS. DNLA DMS doesn't look great. I wonder if DNLA DMS is the next version of DNLA?

Can a DLNA DMP/DMR access commercial content stored on a RVU server?

The RVU server exposes content as a DLNA DMS.* However, choices and descriptions of commercial content and the overall user experience may be limited.* For example, a service provider must allow release of commercial content outside an RVU RUI.

www.rvualliance.org

Allthough here it says this and the PS3 has UPnP.

Scope of RVU Technical Specifications, Device and Service Discovery and Control - UPnP SSDP Media Management, Distribution, and Control - Digital Living Network AllianceTM(DLNA®), UPnP Content streaming and media format interoperability - DLNA AV Transport HTTP Digital content protection - DTCP-IP link protection Remote User Interface - Low-overhead remote bitmap RUI, including remote control commands and status from client devices to the server


----------



## Doug Brott

That's some nice cutting and pasting .. I suggest you read through that information a few times to better understand RVU. So far you don't seem to be getting it.


----------



## ndole

CraigerCSM said:


> I found the RVU Alliance home page it work with DNLA but DNLA DMS. DNLA DMS doesn't look great. I wonder if DNLA DMS is the next version of DNLA?
> 
> Can a DLNA DMP/DMR access commercial content stored on a RVU server?
> 
> The RVU server exposes content as a DLNA DMS.* However, choices and descriptions of commercial content and the overall user experience may be limited.* For example, a service provider must allow release of commercial content outside an RVU RUI.
> 
> www.rvualliance.org
> 
> Allthough here it says this and the PS3 has UPnP.
> 
> Scope of RVU Technical Specifications, Device and Service Discovery and Control - UPnP SSDP Media Management, Distribution, and Control - Digital Living Network AllianceTM(DLNA®), UPnP Content streaming and media format interoperability - DLNA AV Transport HTTP Digital content protection - DTCP-IP link protection Remote User Interface - Low-overhead remote bitmap RUI, including remote control commands and status from client devices to the server


Stop copy/pasting, please. If you're asking a specific question, please ask that. I just don't understand what you're getting at?


----------



## Guest

Thiis interesting about HD 1080p through low resolutions.

Does the RVU Remote User Interface (RUI) support High Definition format resolutions?*The RVU client will provide the server with information about the video capabilities of the client, including the aspect ratio and output resolution of the client.* The RVU server can create pixel UI bitmaps from 1080p through very low resolutions.

www.rvualliance.org


----------



## ndole

CraigerCSM said:


> Thiis interesting about HD 1080p through low resolutions.
> 
> Does the RVU Remote User Interface (RUI) support High Definition format resolutions?*The RVU client will provide the server with information about the video capabilities of the client, including the aspect ratio and output resolution of the client.* The RVU server can create pixel UI bitmaps from 1080p through very low resolutions.
> 
> www.rvualliance.org


Wha? Is that what you were asking?


----------



## RobertE




----------



## Guest

ndole_mbnd said:


> Wha? Is that what you were asking?


That is from the RVU site I wasn't asiking that.


----------



## Guest

One more try if the HR34 has a router built into it an ethernet cable would go from the HR34 to the PS3's ethernet jack if the PS3 gets an RVU App. Or if the HR34 also has wifi the PS3 could be hooked up that way with an RVU App?

Is an HDTV's RVU Adapter coax or ethernet?


----------



## ndole

CraigerCSM said:


> One more try if the HR34 has a router built into it an ethernet cable would go from the HR34 to the PS3's ethernet jack *Probably not* if the PS3 gets an RVU App. Or if the HR34 also has wifi *probably not* the PS3 could be hooked up that way with an RVU App?
> 
> Is an HDTV's RVU Adapter coax or ethernet? *could be either, but more than likely will be ethernet. Coax will bring the deca signals up the the tv, a deca device will convert the signals from coax to ethernet. The ethernet coming out of the deca device will connect to the tv*


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerCSM said:


> One more try if the HR34 has a router built into it an ethernet cable would go from the HR34 to the PS3's ethernet jack if the PS3 gets an RVU App. Or if the HR34 also has wifi the PS3 could be hooked up that way with an RVU App?
> 
> Is an HDTV's RVU Adapter coax or ethernet?


Here's some advice/statements/questions -

Wait until the HR34 is released.
Are you going to get a HR34 or a new RVU tv? If not, then why the 6 million questions?


----------



## Alebob911

:ramblinon


----------



## Doug Brott

The HR24 doesn't have a router or WiFi built in .. Seriously, what do you think the odds are of DIRECTV adding that to to an HR34? (read: no chance)

Networking is the way it is today .. There is nothing different. If your PS3 connects wirelessly to your network, it will continue connecting wirelessly. RVU has nothing to do with how your devices are connected to your home network.

Think of RVU as a language (like most of us here are speaking English) .. These devices, PS3, HR34, generic-client, Roku, Google TV, whatever .. IF (and only if) the companies that build these devices teach RVU (the language) to the devices, will they be able to speak the language (of RVU). Once trained, any device that speaks RVU will be able to speak with any other device that speaks RVU. How it is physically attached to the network really doesn't matter as long as the speed at which it is attached is sufficient (and no, I don't know what that specific number is).

This is the concept that has alluded you for the past several days. Once you get that point, I think the rest of what you are asking will be much clearer to you.


----------



## Guest

sigma1914 said:


> Here's some advice/statements/questions -
> 
> Wait until the HR34 is released.
> Are you going to get a HR34 or a new RVU tv? If not, then why the 6 million questions?


Can't a person be curious about the new DTV tech because I like to keep up with the lastest tech news by checking tech news on Engadget. I may get one depending on how much it costs, I hope its not $500 or more and if the PS3 will get an RVU App. I also know how it connects now if it has a router. For a minute I forgot how TCP/IP worked for a minute.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> The HR24 doesn't have a router or WiFi built in .. Seriously, what do you think the odds are of DIRECTV adding that to to an HR34? (read: no chance)
> 
> Networking is the way it is today .. There is nothing different. If your PS3 connects wirelessly to your network, it will continue connecting wirelessly. RVU has nothing to do with how your devices are connected to your home network.
> 
> Think of RVU as a language (like most of us here are speaking English) .. These devices, PS3, HR34, generic-client, Roku, Google TV, whatever .. IF (and only if) the companies that build these devices teach RVU (the language) to the devices, will they be able to speak the language (of RVU). Once trained, any device that speaks RVU will be able to speak with any other device that speaks RVU. How it is physically attached to the network really doesn't matter as long as the speed at which it is attached is sufficient (and no, I don't know what that specific number is).
> 
> This is the concept that has alluded you for the past several days. Once you get that point, I think the rest of what you are asking will be much clearer to you.


I think it would be stupid to have router on top of the HR34 just another box to add. Also, I forgot how TCP/IP worked for a minute.


----------



## Tom Robertson

FYI: My Samsung treats each DLNA server as another "Source" to choose. If I had every physical input connected plus all my DLNA servers (including HR2x), it would be a very long list of possible sources... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## dsw2112

CraigerCSM said:


> ...I also know how it connects now if it has a router...





CraigerCSM said:


> I think it would be stupid to have router on top of the HR34 just another box to add. Also, I forgot how TCP/IP worked for a minute.


As Doug mentioned, I think you're confused on some of the concepts and terminology. I believe you're confusing the word router above... A router is not necessary in the concept of RVU.


----------



## RobertE

CraigerCSM said:


> Can't a person be curious about the new DTV tech because I like to keep up with the lastest tech news by checking tech news on Engadget. I may get one depending on how much it costs, I hope its not $500 or more and if the PS3 will get an RVU App. I also know how it connects now if it has a router. For a minute I forgot how TCP/IP worked, stupid me.


Nothing wrong with being curious and asking questions...as long as they are based in reality. Many of yours have unfortunately been borderline jibberish. Kinda like asking how a fish could drive a car in outer space with a banana. Sure it's a question, but when people read it and go :eek2: then, well...time for some more reading.



CraigerCSM said:


> I think it would be stupid to have to have router on top of the HR34 just another box to add. Also, I forgot how TCP/IP worked for a minute.


No, it would be stupid to add and then have to support something that wouldn't be used as the primary distribution backbone, and that the customer may already have in their home. Just like the OTA tuners in the past.


----------



## Guest

Maybe I am thnking server and router are the same thing and their not. I guess I was thinking the HR34 would also have muiltple ethernet ports coming out it running ethernet cables to RVU clients. If the HR34 does require a router hooked up to it I wont be gettng one. I will just stick to having two boxes. The HR34 looks huge you would think being that big a router/gateway would be built in. You guys can rejoice now I won't be a bother in this thread anymore.


----------



## dsw2112

CraigerCSM said:


> Maybe I am thnking server and router are the same thing and their not. I guess I was thinking the HR34 would also have muiltple ethernet ports coming out it running ethernet cables to RVU clients. If the HR34 does require a router hooked up to it I wont be gettng one. I will just stick to having two boxes. You guys can rejoice now I won't be a bother in this thread anymore.


A router and a server are completely different. A router is not required with an HR34, or for RVU functionality. While D* hasn't released the specific connectivity options for the HR34 I think the concept you're missing is this:

The HR34 has Deca; by connecting a broadband Deca to the HR34 you can hook up as many ethernet RVU clients as you like. That also leaves the option for a D* RVU client with Deca built-in. These clients can have the HR34 coaxial cable run directly for connectivity. There's no need for a router in these scenarios.


----------



## spartanstew

Will it toast my Eggo's, or will I need a separate toaster?


----------



## dsw2112

CraigerCSM said:


> ...The HR34 looks huge you would think being that big a router/gateway would be built in...


I think you would need to define what you think a router/gateway would be used for in this scenario. I think you're confused on the usage.


----------



## sigma1914

spartanstew said:


> Will it toast my Eggo's, or will I need a separate toaster?


Does the toaster have a router? Gateway? TCP/IP? Coax?


----------



## dsw2112

spartanstew said:


> Will it toast my Eggo's, or will I need a separate toaster?





sigma1914 said:


> Does the toaster have a router? Gateway? TCP/IP? Coax?


Silly questions; everyone knows the toaster needs a modem to make waffles :lol: Wonder if the HR34 has a modem...


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Maybe I am thnking server and router are the same thing and their not. I guess I was thinking the HR34 would also have muiltple ethernet ports coming out it running ethernet cables to RVU clients. If the HR34 does require a router hooked up to it I wont be gettng one. I will just stick to having two boxes. The HR34 looks huge you would think being that big a router/gateway would be built in. You guys can rejoice now I won't be a bother in this thread anymore.


Don't you already have a router? How exactly are you able to post @ DBSTalk if you don't? :scratchin

Even if the HR34 required a router (none of the other DVRs do), you've already got one. You wouldn't need a second one.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> Don't you already have a router? How exactly are you able to post @ DBSTalk if you don't? :scratchin
> 
> Even if the HR34 required a router (none of the other DVRs do), you've already got one. You wouldn't need a second one.


I have a wireless router dsl modem gateway all in one unit but its in an office upstairs and no ethernet jacks in the house. If the HR34 is $400 or more a don't think I'll get one anyway I'll just wait to see what the specs and price on the HR34. I was just curious how the HR34 worked. Sorry for all the questions.


----------



## Newshawk

spartanstew said:


> Will it toast my Eggo's, or will I need a separate toaster?


Are your Eggos QAM or 8psk?


----------



## Doug Brott

Craiger, here is how it would be set up in your house:









Click Here for High Resolution Version

From DIRECTV's perspective, everything will be connected via DECA. This is just a formality and the way DIRECTV does it. RVU does not require it to be connected via DECA. It simply requires that it be connected via your home network. Again, I'm not sure of the speeds needed, so Powerline and/or WiFi setups may work as well. No matter how you look at it, each device simply becomes a part of your home network. You have a home network now, adding an HR34 to your home would be done the exact same way you have your HR24 connected .. Either DECA or through the Ethernet port. It's really simple and doesn't mean that you need to add all kinds of extra hardware.

It seems to me that you don't even know what a router is .. So in simplistic terms, from the diagram above ..

The small box on the right side of the house with two antennas sticking up is the router .. The 'e' inside the cloud can be thought of as the Gateway. Sometimes those two devices are the same box - sometimes they are separate. So for the HR34, you either use DECA through the SWiM coax that already connects to the HR34 ** OR ** you add an Ethernet cable to the back of the HR34 and connect the other end to your home network. The same connection process would be repeated at each client or TV location. If that Client or TV location doesn't have a coax/DECA connection, then you are limited to an Ethernet cable connection .. HOWEVER, DIRECTV Makes small DECA modules that are used for the HR20, HR21, etc. This same module with a power adapter could be used to connect to the TV if it's otherwise difficult to get an Ethernet drop at that TV location.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> Craiger, here is how it would be set up in your house:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click Here for High Resolution Version
> 
> From DIRECTV's perspective, everything will be connected via DECA. This is just a formality and the way DIRECTV does it. RVU does not require it to be connected via DECA. It simply requires that it be connected via your home network. Again, I'm not sure of the speeds needed, so Powerline and/or WiFi setups may work as well. No matter how you look at it, each device simply becomes a part of your home network. You have a home network now, adding an HR34 to your home would be done the exact same way you have your HR24 connected .. Either DECA or through the Ethernet port. It's really simple and doesn't mean that you need to add all kinds of extra hardware.
> 
> It seems to me that you don't even know what a router is .. So in simplistic terms, from the diagram above ..
> 
> The small box on the right side of the house with two antennas sticking up is the router .. The 'e' inside the cloud can be thought of as the Gateway. Sometimes those two devices are the same box - sometimes they are separate. So for the HR34, you either use DECA through the SWiM coax that already connects to the HR34 ** OR ** you add an Ethernet cable to the back of the HR34 and connect the other end to your home network. The same connection process would be repeated at each client or TV location. If that Client or TV location doesn't have a coax/DECA connection, then you are limited to an Ethernet cable connection .. HOWEVER, DIRECTV Makes small DECA modules that are used for the HR20, HR21, etc. This same module with a power adapter could be used to connect to the TV if it's otherwise difficult to get an Ethernet drop at that TV location.


Thanks for the graph and explanation, I remembered that router is an extender right? For some reason I drew a blank on it and how TCP/IP worked. So basically a RVU client would be hooked up through Deca or ethernet?


----------



## Laxguy

CraigerCSM said:


> Thanks for the graph. I remembered that router is an extender right? For some reason I drew a blank on it and how TCP/IP worked.


Google is great for answers to basic questions. Please trim when there's a long quote and/or image.


----------



## mluntz

BudShark said:


> Its the most technically advanced receiver DirecTV will have and eliminates recording conflicts


Not in my house it wouldn't! I have 3 HR's in the living room, and still have recording conflicts. :eek2:


----------



## Guest

The coax line would come from the dish and would go to the HR34. The other coax lines would come from the dish or multiswitch depending on how many HDTV's a person has and would go to the coax input on the back of the RVU HDTV?


----------



## LameLefty

CraigerCSM said:


> The coax line would come from the dish and would go to the HR34. The other coax lines would come from the dish or multiswitch depending on how many HDTV's a person has and would go to the coax input on the back of the RVU HDTV?


No.

The coax from the dish goes to the SWiM. From there, coax goes to every location that needs a TV. The HR34 gets plugged into one of these wherever the customer likes. Client boxes or RVU-compliant TVs get plugged into coax runs from the switch. That's it.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Thanks for the graph and explanation, I remembered that router is an extender right? For some reason I drew a blank on it and how TCP/IP worked. So basically a RVU client would be hooked up through Deca or ethernet?


A router is not an extender Click this -> What is a router?

To answer the latter .. Yes, an RVU client (client box or TV) would be hooked up through DECA or Ethernet.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> A router is not an extender Click this -> What is a router?
> 
> To answer the latter .. Yes, an RVU client (client box or TV) would be hooked up through DECA or Ethernet.


Do you think RVU HDTV's have Deca built in?


----------



## Laxguy

mluntz said:


> Not in my house it wouldn't! I have 3 HR's in the living room, and still have recording conflicts. :eek2:


Hmmmm. Lock away all remotes, change your PW into the website, and record only via that or the iPad app..... May be a revolt against the Master, but you would enjoy no _*Hardware recording conflcts*_ for a bit. :nono2:


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Do you think RVU HDTV's have Deca built in?


It's been stated earlier in the thread, but perhaps you missed it .. The only RVU HDTV's out there are from Samsung. Samsung only has an Ethernet interface. DECA is not built in. However, you could use a DIRECTV DECA module connected to coax and then go Ethernet from the DECA module to the TV. Of course that DECA module would need a power adapter.

In fact, I think I said that exact thing just a few posts up.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> It's been stated earlier in the thread, but perhaps you missed it .. The only RVU HDTV's out there are from Samsung. Samsung only has an Ethernet interface. DECA is not built in. However, you could use a DIRECTV DECA module connected to coax and then go Ethernet from the DECA module to the TV. Of course that DECA module would need a power adapter.
> 
> In fact, I think I said that exact thing just a few posts up.


Sorry I tend to read posts to fast.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Sorry I tend to read posts to fast.


I'd suggest reading everything first as you've asked the same question multiple times .. It's been answered multiple times as well. A little reading will go a long way ..


----------



## harsh

CraigerCSM said:


> Do you think RVU HDTV's have Deca built in?


Thus far, no off-the-shelf TV has DECA built in. The few that support RVU have Ethernet ports and some of those also support USB WiFi dongles. I suppose it is possible that someone will come up with USB DECA adapter, but it will have to be self-powered.

As slick as it would be, I'm inclined to think that it probably won't happen until most of the broadband providers have converted to MoCA (something I don't necessarily see happening and something DIRECTV is quite a long way from doing themselves).

What remains to be seen is whether or not the HR34 _requires_ DECA. It doesn't seem practical to require it if you're going to have to use a DECA adapter at each client TV that supports RVU internally.


----------



## dsw2112

harsh said:


> What remains to be seen is whether or not the HR34 _requires_ DECA. It doesn't seem practical to require it if you're going to have to use a DECA adapter at each client TV that supports RVU internally.


What would be your practical implementation to avoid a Deca adapter at the client? More specifically, how would D* support/troubleshoot your implementation?


----------



## ndole

dsw2112 said:


> What would be your practical implementation to avoid a Deca adapter at the client? More specifically, *how would D* support/troubleshoot your implementation?*


Oh! That's an easy one! :lol:


----------



## dsw2112

ndole_mbnd said:


> Oh! That's an easy one! :lol:


I take it you don't wanna carry some new parts in your truck :lol:


----------



## ndole

dsw2112 said:


> I take it you don't wanna carry some new parts in your truck :lol:


Nope! 

Directv's implementation of DECA is obviously their choice for how they're going to distribute RVU in the home in the near future. To imply that D* would ever go to an ethernet infrastructure is foolish IMHO. If anything, I'd look for them to be researching wifi solutions for RVU transmission down the road. Not ethernet.


----------



## mluntz

Laxguy said:


> Hmmmm. Lock away all remotes, change your PW into the website, and record only via that or the iPad app..... May be a revolt against the Master, but you would enjoy no _*Hardware recording conflcts*_ for a bit. :nono2:


Not all the Masters fault! I record a lot of shows too, plus all the sports she hates! :lol::lol:


----------



## harsh

dsw2112 said:


> More specifically, how would D* support/troubleshoot your implementation?


I'm not convinced that the DECA adapter's glowing LED is an invaluable aid in supporting/troubleshooting implementation problems.

It comes down to points of failure:
Ethernet cabling can be verified with a straightforward continuity test.
Ethernet typically doesn't suffer from the too-tight bend radius issues.
Ethernet typically doesn't suffer from RF interference, ringing or attenuation issues.
Ethernet doesn't require an external power supply.
Of course no matter how great DECA is, the "last mile" will be Ethernet cabling.

If tool count is the complaint, I might suggest the Ideal VDV tester that offers both coax toning and continuity testing.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ndole_mbnd said:


> Nope!
> 
> Directv's implementation of DECA is obviously their choice for how they're going to distribute RVU in the home in the near future. To imply that D* would ever go to an ethernet infrastructure is foolish IMHO. If anything, I'd look for them to be researching wifi solutions for RVU transmission down the road. Not ethernet.


Agree....and all evidence to date points to that as the solution.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Of course no matter how great DECA is, the "last mile" will be Ethernet cabling.


My HR24 doesn't think that .. :grin:


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> I'm not convinced that the DECA adapter's glowing LED is an invaluable aid in supporting/troubleshooting implementation problems.


How could you be? You're not even convinced enough to have service from the only provider that actually has DIRECTV Ethernet over Coax (Adapter). The lights may not be the end-all for testing, but a simple "orange is bad, green is good" check is quite helpful.


----------



## dsw2112

harsh said:


> I'm not convinced that the DECA adapter's glowing LED is an invaluable aid in supporting/troubleshooting implementation problems.
> 
> It comes down to points of failure:
> Ethernet cabling can be verified with a straightforward continuity test.
> Ethernet typically doesn't suffer from the too-tight bend radius issues.
> Ethernet typically doesn't suffer from RF interference, ringing or attenuation issues.
> Ethernet doesn't require an external power supply.
> Of course no matter how great DECA is, the "last mile" will be Ethernet cabling.
> 
> If tool count is the complaint, I might suggest the Ideal VDV tester that offers both coax toning and continuity testing.


I think you're confused if you think tool count is the single "complaint" here. Your speaking of an infrastructure change.

I suppose you're not aware of the software tools available to troubleshoot Deca (above and beyond the "glowing LED.")


Ethernet cabling can be verified with a straightforward continuity test. Coaxial cable can also be measured utilizing continuity
Ethernet typically doesn't suffer from the too-tight bend radius issues. You're reaching. There are few circumstances where this is a problem, and it's not enough of an issue to change infrastructure.
Ethernet typically doesn't suffer from RF interference, ringing or attenuation issues. I like your use of "typically"; it makes your statement sound accurate...
Ethernet doesn't require an external power supply. Hmm, most ethernet switches are powered, and would be necessary in an ethernet infrastructure

This is an old argument -- DECA vs Ethernet. It's amazing that people will argue this to no end; do you really care how the data gets from point A to point B? And if you do, attach a DECA directly to the receiver, and use ethernet for the rest. Your "points of failure" then decrease dramatically... It's also possible that D* will let you use the ethernet port on the HR34


----------



## JosephB

I think someone is looking for validation for their choice of in home infrastructure. I'm sure for certain people, Ethernet is just fine or even better than coax. However for DirecTV, which has been installing coax for years, has tools to test coax (that are more advanced than simple lights on the DECA..they have other signal meters, etc. that can test coax), and has training in place, I think DECA will be their preferred method. Especially considering that coax is easier to terminate, and they will need coax on the truck for non MRV installs, I don't see them ever going to Ethernet. If they come across an RVU client with ethernet only, a DECA adapter is cheaper than setting up their install network to be able to pull CAT6.


----------



## Laxguy

Amen! 

Perhaps we can get back to RVU instead of the side show of ethernet v. coax.


----------



## LameLefty

Laxguy said:


> Amen!
> 
> Perhaps we can get back to RVU instead of the side show of *harsh v. Directv*.


Fixed your quote.


----------



## Beerstalker

Craiger, this is how I understand it would work in in your case. You would have one coax cable that came in from the satellite dish to a power inserter and then on to a splitter. One coax would come off the splitter and go to the HR34. Another coax run would go up to the room where your current DSL modem/wireless router is. That coax cable would be hooked up to a broadband DECA unit which would then connect to your DSL router with a Cat5 cable. This would give your HR34 access to the internet for On-Demand content, and would also give it access to your home's wired/wireless network. That means that if you were to buy a RVU client that hooked up to your wireless network (or if Sony came out with an update that allowed the PS3 to act as an RVU client) they would be able to talk to the HR34 and show the guide, play recordings, watch live TV, etc.

You could then also hook other coax cables up to the main splitter and run them out to DirecTVs thin clients (can't remember what they're called now H30?). These thin clients would then hook up to your non-RVU compliant TVs and give them access to the HR34.

DirecTV will only be worried about getting the dish installed, HR34 up and running, broadband DECA running, and any DirecTV thin clients running. All of those items will be networked over coax cable. If you have your PS3 or anything else like that to hook up you will be responsible for doing it on your own over ethernet, wifi, etc.

Hope this helps explain it a bit better.


----------



## JosephB

Beerstalker said:


> Craiger, this is how I understand it would work in in your case. You would have one coax cable that came in from the satellite dish to a power inserter and then on to a splitter. One coax would come off the splitter and go to the HR34. Another coax run would go up to the room where your current DSL modem/wireless router is. That coax cable would be hooked up to a broadband DECA unit which would then connect to your DSL router with a Cat5 cable. This would give your HR34 access to the internet for On-Demand content, and would also give it access to your home's wired/wireless network. That means that if you were to buy a RVU client that hooked up to your wireless network (or if Sony came out with an update that allowed the PS3 to act as an RVU client) they would be able to talk to the HR34 and show the guide, play recordings, watch live TV, etc.
> 
> You could then also hook other coax cables up to the main splitter and run them out to DirecTVs thin clients (can't remember what they're called now H30?). These thin clients would then hook up to your non-RVU compliant TVs and give them access to the HR34.
> 
> DirecTV will only be worried about getting the dish installed, HR34 up and running, broadband DECA running, and any DirecTV thin clients running. All of those items will be networked over coax cable. If you have your PS3 or anything else like that to hook up you will be responsible for doing it on your own over ethernet, wifi, etc.
> 
> Hope this helps explain it a bit better.


I'd bet that DirecTV will offer at least a minimum amount of support to get non-DirecTV RVU clients up and running. Whether it's simply running coax to the device/TV and providing a DECA or even as far as configuring the device, I'm sure they won't install the HR34 and then with someone that has a Samsung TV in the other room tell them they're on their own.


----------



## Guest

Beerstalker said:


> Craiger, this is how I understand it would work in in your case. You would have one coax cable that came in from the satellite dish to a power inserter and then on to a splitter. One coax would come off the splitter and go to the HR34. Another coax run would go up to the room where your current DSL modem/wireless router is. That coax cable would be hooked up to a broadband DECA unit which would then connect to your DSL router with a Cat5 cable. This would give your HR34 access to the internet for On-Demand content, and would also give it access to your home's wired/wireless network. That means that if you were to buy a RVU client that hooked up to your wireless network (or if Sony came out with an update that allowed the PS3 to act as an RVU client) they would be able to talk to the HR34 and show the guide, play recordings, watch live TV, etc.
> 
> You could then also hook other coax cables up to the main splitter and run them out to DirecTVs thin clients (can't remember what they're called now H30?). These thin clients would then hook up to your non-RVU compliant TVs and give them access to the HR34.
> 
> DirecTV will only be worried about getting the dish installed, HR34 up and running, broadband DECA running, and any DirecTV thin clients running. All of those items will be networked over coax cable. If you have your PS3 or anything else like that to hook up you will be responsible for doing it on your own over ethernet, wifi, etc.
> 
> Hope this helps explain it a bit better.


Thanks it did explain it alot better. I think I was confused on how my DSL Gateway hooked into the HR34. Now I know through the Deca adapter. Just curious can a DSL Gateway be hooked into the HR34 another way through the HR34"s ethernet port?

I am going to wait on HR34 until I see how much it costs and if they make the PS3 RVU compatible don't know when or if Sony will do that.

Also I'm kind iffy on those power inserters, how reliable are they? All SWIM installs require them right?


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Also I'm kind iffy on those power inserters, how reliable are they? All SWIM installs require them right?


This is one of those left field things .. While I'm sure that a power supply has died here or there, I actually have never heard of one failing. Not one single one. I'm not an installer so it's not something I'd be involved with on a day-to-day basis, but if they were the least bit unreliable, I'd think that I would have heard of at least one going bad.

I'd think under normal circumstances, you are much more likely to lose power to your home than to have a power supply go bad.


----------



## ndole

Doug Brott said:


> This is one of those left field things .. While I'm sure that a power supply has died here or there, I actually have never heard of one failing. Not one single one. I'm not an installer so it's not something I'd be involved with on a day-to-day basis, but if they were the least bit unreliable, I'd think that I would have heard of at least one going bad.
> 
> I'd think under normal circumstances, you are much more likely to lose power to your home than to have a power supply go bad.


<Technician hat>
Only had 1 bad one, and it was the signal output that was bad and not the power to the odu.
</Technician hat>


----------



## Doug Brott

There, now I've heard of one


----------



## ndole

Doug Brott said:


> There, now I've heard of one


Just one


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> My HR24 doesn't think that .. :grin:


And the HR24 also happens to be the only real DECA diagnostic tool. Of course the HR24 isn't an RVU client yet so it doesn't count.


----------



## Jeremy W

harsh said:


> Of course the HR24 isn't an RVU client yet


There's no need for the *yet*. The HR24 has no reason to be an RVU client.


----------



## harsh

dsw2112 said:


> Coaxial cable can also be measured utilizing continuity


Sorts or opens may be detected, but RF performance can't be measured with a continuity tester. Nothing is impossible but the impacts of RF in a current loop system are exceedingly rare.


> Hmm, most ethernet switches are powered, and would be necessary in an ethernet infrastructure


I have no illusions that the consumer is going to seriously consider PoE but as Doug already pointed out, you don't need a router/switch at each client. For the environmentally conscious, a modern 8 port switch uses less power than a single DECA adapter.

The challenge was to construct a framework that was relatively easy to diagnose and I think I've done that by citing the issues that CAT5e doesn't share with DECA. DECA is undoubtedly DIRECTV's current favored networking method but that has to coexist with what the RVU client manufacturers are willing to outfit their TVs with.


----------



## inkahauts

"harsh" said:


> And the HR24 also happens to be the only real DECA diagnostic tool. ......


Wrong.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## hdtvfan0001

inkahauts said:


> Wrong.


No kidding...many folks who have the DECA-enabled system know about the WHDS (MRV) test menu.

With DECA out there at many customer locations, and multiple other DECA-enabled regular HD DVR models in place as well...there's certainly no reason to speculate anymore.

Then again...if you don't have DECA...I suppose its all one can do. There's enough information from those in the know in this thread to understand how this will all work out on the connectivity side.


----------



## Doug Brott

The DECA menu for technical users is only on the HR24 .. That being said, the folks that do the installing of DECA for a living (DIRECTV techs) have a few more tools at their fingertips.

That being said, don't let harsh convince you it's a bad thing. Again, we're talking about the less than 1% issue as if it were the size of Mt Everest. Truth is folks that terminate coax correctly (which is easier than Cat5) and use the yellow/green lights on the adapters are going to solve 99% of the problems. Don't let harsh convince you that this is a problem.

The real "issue" may come up when connecting to Ethernet based TVs. I'm pretty sure DIRECTV has already thought of this  Whether it's Ethernet based, DECA based or some combination of the two, RVU looks like it's on it's way and here to stay for a while.


----------



## JosephB

And as someone who has done plenty of both, terminating coax is much easier (and more forgiving) than terminating Cat5/6


----------



## Jeremy W

JosephB said:


> And as someone who has done plenty of both, terminating coax is much easier (and more forgiving) than terminating Cat5/6


Lining up all 8 wires, making sure they stay in the proper order. Gives me nightmares. 

That's why I'm a software developer. :lol:


----------



## hombresoto

"ndole_mbnd" said:


> <Technician hat>
> Only had 1 bad one, and it was the signal output that was bad and not the power to the odu.
> </Technician hat>


Had one go bad last week for the first time. Blew the breaker and self destructed.


----------



## Jeremy W

ndole_mbnd said:


> <Technician hat>
> Only had 1 bad one, and it was the signal output that was bad and not the power to the odu.
> </Technician hat>





hombresoto said:


> Had one go bad last week for the first time. Blew the breaker and self destructed.


It's an epidemic! DECA is a massive failure!


----------



## JosephB

Jeremy W said:


> Lining up all 8 wires, making sure they stay in the proper order. Gives me nightmares.
> 
> That's why I'm a software developer. :lol:


Well, to be honest if I were DirecTV and I were going to do RJ-45 connectors, I'd use RJ-45 female jacks with punch down connectors for the long spans and then just give out machine-made cables to connect to the boxes. Still, coax beats that by a mile.


----------



## ndole

Jeremy W said:


> It's an epidemic! DECA is a massive failure!


Yeah :lol: The one I saw was _just_ a SWiM install. No deca


----------



## houskamp

JosephB said:


> And as someone who has done plenty of both, terminating coax is much easier (and more forgiving) than terminating Cat5/6





Jeremy W said:


> Lining up all 8 wires, making sure they stay in the proper order. Gives me nightmares.
> 
> That's why I'm a software developer. :lol:


 Especialy when you get old and your eyesight goes..


----------



## ndole

Jeremy W said:


> It's an epidemic! DECA is a massive failure!


Yeah :lol: The one I saw was _just_ a SWiM install. No deca


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> Truth is folks that terminate coax correctly (which is easier than Cat5) and use the yellow/green lights on the adapters are going to solve 99% of the problems.


Problem solving is an awful lot to ask of an idiot light; even if it is multi-state.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> Problem solving is an awful lot to ask of an idiot light; even if it is multi-state.


Problem solving is an awful lot to ask of idiots, too. 

As is, apparently, nuanced thought rather than knee-jerk criticism. I haven't had a power inserter, SWiM unit (2 SWiM8's and 16), DECA module, or even a BBC go bad. For that matter, I'm still using my original AT-9 5-LNB dish that was last peaked in 2007. Things rarely "go bad" absent outside influence.


----------



## hancox

Doug Brott said:


> The DECA menu for technical users is only on the HR24 .. That being said, the folks that do the installing of DECA for a living (DIRECTV techs) have a few more tools at their fingertips.
> 
> That being said, don't let harsh convince you it's a bad thing. Again, we're talking about the less than 1% issue as if it were the size of Mt Everest. Truth is folks that terminate coax correctly (which is easier than Cat5) and use the yellow/green lights on the adapters are going to solve 99% of the problems. Don't let harsh convince you that this is a problem.
> 
> The real "issue" may come up when connecting to Ethernet based TVs. I'm pretty sure DIRECTV has already thought of this  Whether it's Ethernet based, DECA based or some combination of the two, RVU looks like it's on it's way and here to stay for a while.


Isn't this all irrelevant, though? If it's at the point where the user has to troubleshoot anything, it stops being a "supported" solution, or at least stops mattering.

(Disclosure - I'm not an active DECA user, due to diplexed OTA, but not "anti-DECA")


----------



## Guest

Can ethernet do 1080p video and Dolby HD Audio? If so more and more HD devices are going to have ethernet built in. Wouldn't it be easier installing ethernet jacks each room with a HD device that has an ethernet input and having a home networked like an office?


----------



## Laxguy

CraigerCSM said:


> Can ethernet do 1080p video and Dolby HD Audio? If so more and more HD devices are going to have ethernet built in. Wouldn't it be easier installing ethernet jacks each room with a HD device that has an ethernet input and having a home networked like an office?


Yes, it can and does. 
As to networking for whole home, DECA- ethernet OVER COAX- is the preferred method for DirecTV going forward.
I believe if you read this entire thread you'll find all the questions you're asking to have been addressed. 
Good luck!


----------



## Doug Brott

Samsung RVU connection is Ethernet (not DECA). I think the jury is still out on format at the client level, but with Ethernet more general purpose, it may be the final answer for things like TVs, etc.


----------



## Guest

Laxguy said:


> Yes, it can and does.
> As to networking for whole home, DECA- ethernet OVER COAX- is the preferred method for DirecTV going forward.
> I believe if you read this entire thread you'll find all the questions you're asking to have been addressed.
> Good luck!


I know, Deca seems more complex with splitters, Deca adapters and power inserters. Only one cable with ethernet from the ethernet jack to any device with an ethernet input.


----------



## Doug Brott

No .. Let's not rehash the Ethernet/DECA debate that we just had a few posts back. Time to move on.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> No .. Let's not rehash the Ethernet/DECA debate that we just had a few posts back. Time to move on.


Ok sorry, unless wifi replaces ethernet?


----------



## Laxguy

Doug Brott said:


> Samsung RVU connection is Ethernet (not DECA). I think the jury is still out on format at the client level, but with Ethernet more general purpose, it may be the final answer for things like TVs, etc.


Yeah, I shoulda qualified my statement as to what's currently on the ground, so to speak. Who knows, with advances in wireless technology, households could enjoy almost seamless wireless connectivity among a wide variety of gadgets, perhaps even using a spectrum not currently used for broadband WiFi.

I prefer wired, though, and am delighted that MRV doesn't depend on my router not hiccupping from time to time.


----------



## Doug Brott

Wireless is certainly a possibility on a TV client .. The kicker is the interface. It might not make sense to include WiFi in a TV if it is going largely unused .. USB with a specialized dongle (to mate aesthetically with the TV) might work vs. Ethernet. It's not really clear.

I'm also not sure whether or not RVU will cause the same issues on a wireless network that MRV does.


----------



## Laxguy

Doug Brott said:


> Wireless is certainly a possibility on a TV client .. The kicker is the interface. It might not make sense to include WiFi in a TV if it is going largely unused .. USB with a specialized dongle (to mate aesthetically with the TV) might work vs. Ethernet. It's not really clear.


My Samsung Plasma has both an ethernet port and ability to plug in a matching dongle for WiFi via USB. I believe that one day in the not distant future, all such stuff will come with WiFi.



> I'm also not sure whether or not RVU will cause the same issues on a wireless network that MRV does.


With better technology, they may be able to get around most of them. (The tech and hardware of the wireless system, that is; the RVU part will not care how he, she or it is connected, as long as it's solid.)


----------



## inkahauts

If this.. http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/01/qualcomm-unleashes-tri-band-wifi-and-new-mobile-wireless-chipset/ and other news I have seen about the next generations of wifi come true, then I can see wifi become the more relevant ion HD MRV'ing around a house (or RVU'ing) But till then, there just isn't enough room IMHO to do wifi hd streaming in a busy environment. It will work today, but it just can't do multiple streams and such and no one is going to make it the norm till it can...


----------



## Guest

I was wanting to use the PS3 as a DTV HD DVR now that I that I think about it using the PS3 as an DTV HD RVU device would be redundant anyway since the HR34 has a HD DVR in it. Best thing to do would be to get an RVU HDTV in the main TV watching room and have the HR34 ih the bedroom and save the mirroring fee on a box, unless DTV will charge an RVU and mirroring fee? Unless a new LED 120 or 240 hz 1080p RVU HDTV is that much better than my current Sony Rear Projection 55" 1080i HDTV? Also if HR34 and RVU HDTV's are expensive? Or would it better having an HD DVR and HD Receiver anyway as a backup box in case one went down? If the HR34 goes down your screwed right? That's the one bad thing about having everything hooked into a central server right?


----------



## Doug Brott

Ah Ha!


----------



## Laxguy

Took me a bit, as I read "reversed" i.e., the older posts are to the bottom. But for those who read in the default config, the lightbulb finger points to older posts wherein much information resides..... or am I reading too much into that? 
(Like that's never happened before....:nono2: )


----------



## David Ortiz

Laxguy said:


> Took me a bit, as I read "reversed" i.e., the older posts are to the bottom. But for those who read in the default config, the lightbulb finger points to older posts wherein much information resides..... or am I reading too much into that?
> (Like that's never happened before....:nono2: )


I just tried "reversed" order and it's kind of cool. I sometimes wish I could reverse the order of posts when I come across an interesting blog I want to read from the beginning.


----------



## Doug Brott

Laxguy said:


> Took me a bit, as I read "reversed" i.e., the older posts are to the bottom. But for those who read in the default config, the lightbulb finger points to older posts wherein much information resides..... or am I reading too much into that?
> (Like that's never happened before....:nono2: )


I think Craiger is starting to finally get it.


----------



## BattleScott

CraigerCSM said:


> I was wanting to use the PS3 as a DTV HD DVR now that I that I think about it using the PS3 as an DTV HD RVU device would be redundant anyway since the HR34 has a HD DVR in it. Best thing to do would be to get an RVU HDTV in the main TV watching room and have the HR34 ih the bedroom and save the mirroring fee on a box, unless DTV will charge an RVU and mirroring fee? Unless a new LED 120 or 240 hz 1080p RVU HDTV is that much better than my current Sony Rear Projection 55" 1080i HDTV? Also if HR34 and RVU HDTV's are expensive? Or would it better having an HD DVR and HD Receiver anyway as a backup box in case one went down? If the HR34 goes down your screwed right? That's the one bad thing about having everything hooked into a central server right?


You wouldn't have to use the PS3 as a DVR device (you would probably NOT be able to anyways), you could use it as the RVU client for the Sony projector. Or, you could get one of the DTV client devices for it. There is no need to spend the extra money for an RVU enabled set unless you want one.

You can rest assured that there will be fees for the RVU clients. More than likely the monthly fee for the server will cover the additonal amounts for the clients, but they could also use an "enabled" clients fee structure as well where they only activate the number of clients needed and the fees are based on that.

Yes the RVU system is a central server system that becomes useless if the server goes down. You just have to decide if the everyday benefits outweigh the slight risk of system downtime of a few days.


----------



## Beerstalker

What I could see them doing is charging a fee of about $20 for each HR34, and allowing it to be used with as many RVU clients as you want (you will probably be limited to 4 outgoing streams at once though if it has 5 tuners). So if you only need one HR34 and all of your TVs or blu-ray players have RVU clients built in all you pay is the $20/month.

If you have to use DirecTVs thin clients (C30 or whatever they are calling it now) then maybe that will be a one time purchase for $100, or maybe a $3-5/month fee to lease it.

I could also maybe see them doing something like charging by the number of active tuners in the HR34. $10/month for 2 tuners active, $15 for 3 tuners, $20 for 4 tuners, $25 for 5 tuners, etc. The HR34 will limit the number of outgoing streams to be one less than the number of tuners active in the box. So if you are paying to have 3 tuners active you can watch directly from the HR34 on one TV and stream to 2 clients at the same time. If you try to stream to a 4th it will give you a pop up window telling you to "call DirecTV to activate another tuner for streaming" or something like that.


----------



## Guest

Beerstalker said:


> What I could see them doing is charging a fee of about $20 for each HR34, and allowing it to be used with as many RVU clients as you want (you will probably be limited to 4 outgoing streams at once though if it has 5 tuners). So if you only need one HR34 and all of your TVs or blu-ray players have RVU clients built in all you pay is the $20/month.
> 
> If you have to use DirecTVs thin clients (C30 or whatever they are calling it now) then maybe that will be a one time purchase for $100, or maybe a $3-5/month fee to lease it.
> 
> I could also maybe see them doing something like charging by the number of active tuners in the HR34. $10/month for 2 tuners active, $15 for 3 tuners, $20 for 4 tuners, $25 for 5 tuners, etc. The HR34 will limit the number of outgoing streams to be one less than the number of tuners active in the box. So if you are paying to have 3 tuners active you can watch directly from the HR34 on one TV and stream to 2 clients at the same time. If you try to stream to a 4th it will give you a pop up window telling you to "call DirecTV to activate another tuner for streaming" or something like that.


Would they still charge a mirroring fee?


----------



## Beerstalker

No, no mirroring fees, just the fees I talked about.

That post is just what I could see them doing, I have no inside knowledge at all and I could be way off on what they actually do.


----------



## Guest

Beerstalker said:


> No, no mirroring fees, just the fees I talked about.
> 
> That post is just what I could see them doing, I have no inside knowledge at all and I could be way off on what they actually do.


I know. Your way doesn't seem worth upgrading to an HR34 system. It would be cheaper just paying the extra $6 mirroring fee then going through an HR34 system install just to get rid of one box.


----------



## Beerstalker

I don't think they really plan on many people changing from HR2x, and H2x setups to get the new HR34. I think it's mostly going to be aimed at new customers and to try to get SD customers to upgrade to HD.

I already have 3 HD-DVRs and one HD receiver with Whole Home, so I can record 6 things at once and still watch one more live event if I really need to. The HR34 doesn't really interest me a whole lot at this time for myself. Now maybe if it comes out with some cool new feature not available on the HR2x/H2x platform I might be interested , but I'm not counting on that.

However I am very interested in it for my parents who are still Comcast customers. They have 8 TVs in the house. It would be rediculous for them to get HD-DVRs and HD receivers to put on each one of them when there is usually only 2 or 3 TVs on at one time, and I would guess 5 at a time Max. The lease fees alone would be $42/month. However, if they could lease one HR34 and buy small client devices or RVU compatible TVs or Blu-Ray players to hook up to each TV this system could work great for them and hopefully cost a lot less.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Beerstalker said:


> I don't think they really plan on many people changing from HR2x, and H2x setups to get the new HR34. I think it's mostly going to be aimed at new customers and to try to get SD customers to upgrade to HD.
> 
> I already have 3 HD-DVRs and one HD receiver with Whole Home, so I can record 6 things at once and still watch one more live event if I really need to. The HR34 doesn't really interest me a whole lot at this time for myself. Now maybe if it comes out with some cool new feature not available on the HR2x/H2x platform I might be interested , but I'm not counting on that.
> 
> However I am very interested in it for my parents who are still Comcast customers. They have 8 TVs in the house. It would be rediculous for them to get HD-DVRs and HD receivers to put on each one of them when there is usually only 2 or 3 TVs on at one time, and I would guess 5 at a time Max. The lease fees alone would be $42/month. However, if they could lease one HR34 and buy small client devices or RVU compatible TVs or Blu-Ray players to hook up to each TV this system could work great for them and hopefully cost a lot less.


Bingo!

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Christopher Gould

Beerstalker said:


> I don't think they really plan on many people changing from HR2x, and H2x setups to get the new HR34. I think it's mostly going to be aimed at new customers and to try to get SD customers to upgrade to HD.
> 
> I already have 3 HD-DVRs and one HD receiver with Whole Home, so I can record 6 things at once and still watch one more live event if I really need to. The HR34 doesn't really interest me a whole lot at this time for myself. Now maybe if it comes out with some cool new feature not available on the HR2x/H2x platform I might be interested , but I'm not counting on that.
> 
> However I am very interested in it for my parents who are still Comcast customers. They have 8 TVs in the house. It would be rediculous for them to get HD-DVRs and HD receivers to put on each one of them when there is usually only 2 or 3 TVs on at one time, and I would guess 5 at a time Max. The lease fees alone would be $42/month. However, if they could lease one HR34 and buy small client devices or RVU compatible TVs or Blu-Ray players to hook up to each TV this system could work great for them and hopefully cost a lot less.


The survey on the directv insiders talked about getting credits for turning in H's and HR's. So they must be think that some will want to change them out.


----------



## jacmyoung

BattleScott said:


> Yes the RVU system is a central server system that becomes useless if the server goes down. You just have to decide if the everyday benefits outweigh the slight risk of system downtime of a few days.


Would that slight risk be similar to those cable outages that almost led to some cable's downfall at one point?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Beerstalker said:


> No, no mirroring fees, just the fees I talked about.
> 
> That post is just what I could see them doing, I have no inside knowledge at all and I could be way off on what they actually do.


well they also have to look and see what cable all vid planes are.

IF the cable all vid has no outlet / mirroring fees then D* will be in a bad place to have them on RVU.


----------



## Jeremy W

JoeTheDragon said:


> well they also have to look and see what cable all vid planes are.


DirecTV will have to comply with AllVid as well. It's not limited to cable companies.


----------



## Tom Robertson

JoeTheDragon's point is still sound--AllVid pricing will be an interesting topic for all the MSOs. 

And the MSOs will have to carry that back to the channels themselves. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> JoeTheDragon's point is still sound--AllVid pricing will be an interesting topic for all the MSOs.


Pricing is one thing, yes. But JoeTheDragon was referring to outlet/mirroring fees, which I believe will be standardized. It's not like Comcast can say "we're charging you for each AllVid-connected device" while DirecTV can say "our monthly fee includes 3 AllVid-connected devices."


----------



## Tom Robertson

Jeremy W said:


> Pricing is one thing, yes. But JoeTheDragon was referring to outlet/mirroring fees, which I believe will be standardized. It's not like Comcast can say "we're charging you for each AllVid-connected device" while DirecTV can say "our monthly fee includes 3 AllVid-connected devices."


I bet the FCC won't include that in the specifications, so the marketing people at various MSOs might actually try different things.


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> I bet the FCC won't include that in the specifications, so the marketing people at various MSOs might actually try different things.


Seems like a fairly important aspect of the spec to me, so I'm going to stick with my gut on this one.


----------



## NR4P

Tom Robertson said:


> I bet the FCC won't include that in the specifications, so the marketing people at various MSOs might actually try different things.


Yes, I can't recall the FCC every being involved in a pricing ruling other than worrying about Early Termination Fees on cell.


----------



## Guest

One thing I forgot is cable is still Mpeg 2 and the Allvid system would be Mpeg 2 based right? The RVU system is Mpeg 4, Mpeg 4 has better PQ right? Unless cable upgraded to Mpeg 4?


----------



## Davenlr

CraigerCSM said:


> The RVU system is Mpeg 4, Mpeg 4 has better PQ right?


Both have the same picture quality. Mpeg4 just uses better compression to send it out with less bandwidth required. Most if not all the feeds DirecTv gets from the broadcasters are formatted in Mpeg2 to begin with. So technically, decoding and reencoding to mpeg4 could result in more loss and less PQ.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Davenlr said:


> Both have the same picture quality. Mpeg4 just uses better compression to send it out with less bandwidth required. Most if not all the feeds DirecTv gets from the broadcasters are formatted in Mpeg2 to begin with. So technically, decoding and reencoding to mpeg4 could result in more loss and less PQ.


alot of feeds are MPEG 4 and the cable co recode them to mpeg2.


----------



## Davenlr

JoeTheDragon said:


> alot of feeds are MPEG 4 and the cable co recode them to mpeg2.


What "cable channel" broadcasters distribute their feeds in Mpeg4? Hallmark, MTV, HBO, Showtime are a couple. Most are still Mpeg2. Some use both, like HBO. HDNet is still Mpeg2. Just depends how many channels they want to cram onto a distro transponder.

Here is one distribution satellite, and only HBO is using Mpeg4 right now on this one:
http://www.lyngsat.com/galaxy12.html


----------



## RAD

ESPN has had a MPEG4 feed up for awhile now, and in fact announced the old MPEG2 feeds go down later this month.


----------



## Davenlr

RAD said:


> ESPN has had a MPEG4 feed up for awhile now, and in fact announced the old MPEG2 feeds go down later this month.


I agree, they are all eventually going to switch to Mpeg4 for the added bandwidth. All the ESPN uplinks from Live events (dont know what they are using on fiber feeds) are still Mpeg2, of the ones I have watched on FTA. With the high dollar equipment used commercially, and the (usually) allotted bandwidth, I doubt anyone would notice any PQ difference between the two, even after recompression from one to the other if they were to tap into the distro feeds. Its basically the way the providers recompress/pair channels that cause any noticeable loss to the consumer. DirecTv allows adequate bandwidth for each channel. My Xfinity cable is mpeg2, but giving a lot of bandwidth for each channel. Neither of those two (here) are using HD-Lite. Cannot speak for the other providers I dont have access to.

Just saying, I really doubt anyone could tell the difference between Mpeg2 and Mpeg4 compression if they were watching the distro feed.

For an RVU setup, it would make more sense to use Mpeg4, since it would take up less network bandwidth, and allow more streams, but not necessarily better PQ.


----------



## jonny4

I want to get in on this field test, I have been waiting for this thing forever.


----------



## Jeremy W

jonny4 said:


> I want to get in on this field test, I have been waiting for this thing forever.


If you want to get in, you're not going to be picked.


----------



## LameLefty

Jeremy W said:


> If you want to get in, you're not going to be picked.


And even if he did, he couldn't talk about it.


----------



## spartanstew

I do not want to be part of this field test.


----------



## LameLefty

"spartanstew" said:


> I do not want to be part of this field test.


Bone dry indeed.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Christopher Gould said:


> The survey on the directv insiders talked about getting credits for turning in H's and HR's. So they must be think that some will want to change them out.


Fascinating...

I'll probably be turning in my HR23-700 & HR20-700 later this year (I meant to already get rid of one, but oh well)... might just have to see what the HR34 will bring to the table, as well as for how much...

~Alan


----------



## David Ortiz

Alan Gordon said:


> Fascinating...
> 
> I'll probably be turning in my HR23-700 & HR20-700 later this year (I meant to already get rid of one, but oh well)... might just have to see what the HR34 will bring to the table, as well as for how much...
> 
> ~Alan


I also have at least two DVRs that I am not recording anything new on and would be glad to trade in for the HR34. Can't wait to hear more of the details!


----------



## Groundhog45

Alan Gordon said:


> Fascinating...
> 
> I'll probably be turning in my HR23-700 & HR20-700 later this year (I meant to already get rid of one, but oh well)... might just have to see what the HR34 will bring to the table, as well as for how much...
> 
> ~Alan


I have three HR20s that would be good candidates for trade-in. They're all over four years old. Guess I'll be in the wait and see mode also.


----------



## jacmyoung

I will jump on it as soon as it streams to mobile devices. I will still keep most of our HR24s around. Can't take the chance of the whole house without service for a few days.


----------



## kevinwmsn

I would get rid of at least the hr21 in my living room if I got one. Maybe the hr20 in the bedroom would go, but I would need a thin client there.


----------



## Christopher Gould

Alan Gordon said:


> Fascinating...
> 
> I'll probably be turning in my HR23-700 & HR20-700 later this year (I meant to already get rid of one, but oh well)... might just have to see what the HR34 will bring to the table, as well as for how much...
> 
> ~Alan


Dont get your hopes up it was just a survey with a bunch of different choices


----------



## BattleScott

Jeremy W said:


> Pricing is one thing, yes. But JoeTheDragon was referring to outlet/mirroring fees, which I believe will be standardized. It's not like Comcast can say "we're charging you for each AllVid-connected device" while DirecTV can say "our monthly fee includes 3 AllVid-connected devices."





Tom Robertson said:


> I bet the FCC won't include that in the specifications, so the marketing people at various MSOs might actually try different things.


I think the final FCC spec will dictate that the fee structure be based on tuners and not "outlets". The gateway device will be required to have a minimum number of tuners, 6 seems to be the current figure, to be used by as many AllVid devices as the customer wants to install on their network. If the customer wants more than 6 tuners, that is where the MSOs will be able to start adding additional charges.


----------



## Jeremy W

BattleScott said:


> I think the final FCC spec will dictate that the fee structure be based on tuners and not "outlets".


I agree with this. With the number of devices that will be AllVid compatible likely to be high, it would be ridiculous to charge by the outlet. Charging by the tuner makes much more sense, and should be mandated by the FCC.


----------



## Shades228

Jeremy W said:


> I agree with this. With the number of devices that will be AllVid compatible likely to be high, it would be ridiculous to charge by the outlet. Charging by the tuner makes much more sense, and should be mandated by the FCC.


There's really not a way to track outlets but they can limit the number of live streams that happen through software so I can't see them being able to enforce per outlet.

I guess we'll find out around October.


----------



## Jeremy W

Shades228 said:


> There's really not a way to track outlets


Every device has a unique ID, so it would be pretty simple actually.


----------



## Shades228

Jeremy W said:


> Every device has a unique ID, so it would be pretty simple actually.


In order for that you would have to a: make it so that every device broadcasted it's ID and that the receiver stored it permanently. They would also have to guarantee it's connected to a telephone line or internet in order to get the data back to know what to charge for appropriately. So as far as DIRECTV is concerned it wouldn't be worth the effort. It would be easier to limit the number of active tuners by software and just charge more to unlock more.


----------



## Doug Brott

Since there would be multiple vendors on the RVU/Allvid side of the house, it would probably be unpopular to charge in that arena. It is one way to do it, though. The obvious solution is to limit the number of available tuners. With the HR34 for example, it could default to 2 tuners and then have an extra tuner fee for each additional tuner up to the 5 on board tuners.

A second box today (getting you 4 tuners instead of 2) costs $6 extra per month. Using the exact same pricing model you'd simply charge $3/month extra for each additional tuner. This would mean an HR34 would cost $6 (base) + $9 for a fully loaded system. DIRECTV could then credit you back the $6 for the base system just like they do on all set top boxes currently.

It's a relatively simple model and then it wouldn't matter how many external devices have access to the HR34.

The reason that it would need to be done this way is easily explained if you have two HR34s in your network. A single client box or TV should have access to both HR34s on the network, but would it constitute one charge or two charges if you charge by the client? If one charge, does it get access on the second box for free or is it not allowed to access the other box at all? See the potential complications?

So, either DIRECTV will make all tuners on the HR34 free and clients will be free or (what I think is going to happen), DIRECTV will create a tuner fee. The first two are basically free when related to the current pricing model, but additional tuners will cost extra.


----------



## Herdfan

Doug Brott said:


> So, either DIRECTV will make all tuners on the HR34 free and clients will be free or (what I think is going to happen), DIRECTV will create a tuner fee. The first two are basically free when related to the current pricing model, but additional tuners will cost extra.


That seems too consumer friendly. :eek2:

For example, a household with 1 HDDVR and 3 HD boxes now pays $18 in extra receiver fees and $3 in WHDVR fees. Depending on how that household uses their equipment, they could conceivably get one HR34, activate 2 tuners and save $18-21 per month.

That is revenue I doubt DirecTV will want to part with. And while this would not work in all households, I bet it would work in some. Or at least some version of it that could reduce a customer's bill.

Even in my house, we have 5 HDDVR's and 3 HD Receivers. I could easily dump the 3 HD receivers and one HD DVR. So that would save me $24 assuming 2 HR34's with 4 tuners each. Eight tuners should be enough.


----------



## Doug Brott

Well, they could require all 5 tuners to be active and use the same model .. That would mean each HR34 would be $15/month instead of $6/month. I doubt the price will be much more than $3/tuner no matter how you slice it .. at some point you'd have to weigh the option of getting multiple HR24s vs. one HR34. From a physical device standpoint, DIRECTV wins with the HR34 being in the field .. One box instead of multiple (lease/inventory). Remember with Samsung TVs, and hopefully other third party devices as clients (certainly the long run plan), DIRECTV no longer has any dollars associated with the remote viewing stations.


----------



## Steve

Assuming TV's are going to be RVU-enabled in the future, they could also charge based on the number of RVU clients you want to be able to access the RVU server(s), no matter what the total # of tuners.

If so, from a customer standpoint, I can imagine a fee based on maximum # of simultaneous clients, so in a family of 3, even if you had 5 RVU-capable TV's, you'd likely never have more than 3 in use, so you'd only need 3 simultaneous use licenses.

OTOH, DirecTV would probably prefer charging a fee for every potential client. Just like now I pay for 6 viewing locations, even though my wife and I never use more than two at once.


----------



## Jeremy W

Shades228 said:


> In order for that you would have to a: make it so that every device broadcasted it's ID and that the receiver stored it permanently.


Simple.


Shades228 said:


> They would also have to guarantee it's connected to a telephone line or internet in order to get the data back to know what to charge for appropriately.


What? The HR34 would be authorized (via satellite) for a certain number of outlets, and that would be that. I don't see why you're making it so complicated.

However, as I had originally posted, I really don't see DirecTV adopting this model. So there is no point in trying to argue with me as to why they wouldn't adopt it, because I'm not saying they would.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jeremy W said:


> Simple.
> 
> What? The HR34 would be authorized (via satellite) for a certain number of outlets, and that would be that. I don't see why you're making it so complicated.
> 
> However, as I had originally posted, I really don't see DirecTV adopting this model. So there is no point in trying to argue with me as to why they wouldn't adopt it, because I'm not saying they would.


Agreed. The design of the HR34 is controlled by DirecTV, so as you have correctly pointed out, control and tracking of the node numbers is certainly an easy task within the framework of the design of this unit.

Your points are well taken, and hopefully now those who have not done so thus far finally "get it".


----------



## NR4P

In addition to what they may charge for each tuner or receiver, wonder what the hardware will cost.
H24 or H25 free or $99
HR24 (or older model) $99 to $149
HR34 $199 to $299?

Time will tell.


----------



## Drucifer

NR4P said:


> In addition to what they may charge for each tuner or receiver, wonder what the hardware will cost.
> H24 or H25 free or $99
> HR24 (or older model) $99 to $149
> HR34 *$199 to $299?*
> 
> Time will tell.


Could be bargain when all the cost are added up.


----------



## Guest

Looks like cable cable cards are making a comeback over ALLVID anyway.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ca...llion-while-allvid-idea-goes-stale/2011-07-01


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> Looks like cable cable cards are making a comeback over ALLVID anyway.
> 
> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ca...llion-while-allvid-idea-goes-stale/2011-07-01


Since you really like this article (two postings), I've copied it into it's own thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=194571 where it can get the discussion it deserves rather than being off topic.

Everyone, please discuss Cablecard and AllVid in the new thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=194571

Otherwise let's continue to HR34 and RVU here.

Cheers
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

I moved a half-dozen posts discussing Allvid to the thread linked in Tom's post (just above this one) .. So let me reiterate .. Please use the following thread for the ongoing Allvid discussion:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=194571

Thank You.


----------



## Davenlr

NR4P said:


> In addition to what they may charge for each tuner or receiver, wonder what the hardware will cost.


Well, had this come out pre-Mike White, I would think it would be an affordable upgrade for most customers. Given *my personal opinion* Mike White's track record of putting shareholders ahead of customers in almost every decision made since he took control, I think, I will pass on the HR34 even if given away free. While it would fit perfectly into my current home entertainment system, I seriously doubt I will feel warm and cuddly paying the extra monthly fee's I just have to believe will accompany it.

I certainly hope I am wrong.


----------



## Doug Brott

Really? I've actually gotten the sense that Mike White has done a good job of managing all of the pieces to the puzzle. While not perfect even today, I think both Customer Service and Installations have improved a lot since his arrival.

Yeah, prices have increased, but don't make assumptions that his predecessor would have kept things in check.

It's probably reasonable to expect relative pricing between a 2-tuner system and a 5-tuner system. The larger system is like having two DVRs in one box. There should be some expectation of higher costs involved with that. I know in my mind there is, I just don't know what the pricing model will be yet.


----------



## Davenlr

Well, I dont want to rehash other threads, and DirecTv is in no way the only company doing the same things. I just feel monthly charges for something a company has zero recurring costs to maintain, is pretty much a rip off.

Take MRV for example. It is simply a software switch. While $3 a month is reasonable, and I am fully aware of the costs of development, if the company wanted to be fair to their customers, they would have charges a one time activation fee for the service, to represent the costs of its development/hardware installation/etc. Recurring monthly charges are really just pure profit, which makes the shareholders happy, but is not a customer friendly fee. 

Same with Tivo. They charge a monthly fee for guide data, which they get from a source most companies include free (SageTv, others). They do, however, offer a one time lifetime fee. I wish DirecTv would also implement a customer friendly option like this. For example, $50 for lifetime MRV service (after paying associated costs for installation, if using a supported method).

Dont get me wrong, I pay it. I just really feel multiple monthly fees for this and that is not customer friendly.

Now, not knowing what the HR34 costs are, its all speculation, but I would rather pay $499 up front with all 5 tuners active for the lifetime of my account or the box, than I would paying $299 for the box, and $6 to whatever extra each month to "turn on" tuners 3-5.

Now, its possible DirecTv has to pay providers extra money for each tuner the customer has (I dont know), and in that case, it would be totally different. But, if they pay the programmers a set amount of money for each customer subscribing to that channel, regardless of the number of tuners, then I feel a one time high fee would be more customer friendly (and generate longer retention of customers) than a monthly fee.


----------



## Doug Brott

Davenlr said:


> Take MRV for example. It is simply a software switch. While $3 a month is reasonable, and I am fully aware of the costs of development, if the company wanted to be fair to their customers, they would have charges a one time activation fee for the service, to represent the costs of its development/hardware installation/etc. Recurring monthly charges are really just pure profit, which makes the shareholders happy, but is not a customer friendly fee.


I'm not sure the SD customers or those with one STB would share your stance on this with respect to "customer friendly." 

There are ongoing support costs, replacing parts, service calls, etc. etc. etc. Yeah, DIRECTV could charge in many ways, this is the one that they chose. Low(ish) barrier to entry, and minimal recurring cost over all MRV subscribers rather than charging everyone or creating a large barrier to entry.



> Dont get me wrong, I pay it. I just really feel multiple monthly fees for this and that is not customer friendly.


Again, I think paying for what you get is better for all customers. Yeah, some of the costs are getting high and I don't like that either, but the model, IMHO, is more customer friendly than other models.


----------



## Davenlr

Dont get me wrong, I dont mind paying, I would just prefer to pay more, once, than pay a little, over and over.


----------



## Herdfan

^^^

Dave,

Generally I would agree with that point, but at the speed tech changes, I would rather someone else take the risk. Take for example the HR10. It was $999 at release, so I sure would not want to have had to pay $5K for five of them. Instead, I paid $299 and $199 for my 5 HD DVR's with DirecTV taking the risk. Sure my monthly bill may be a little higher, but surely not high enough to offset the $4K difference.

So *if* the HR34 is current MRV compatible when it release, I may get one at a subsidized price and get rid of my HR21-700.


----------



## Laxguy

Davenlr said:


> Dont get me wrong, I dont mind paying, I would just prefer to pay more, once, than pay a little, over and over.


+1! 
But I also agree with Doug that there are recurring costs to maintain WH, MRV, Nomad, whatever. Some of these costs are in phone center personnel, who field calls that are really about customer confusion or ignorance. Not from anyone on the forum, of course, but You Know: Internet goes down, PPV movie stops, calls are made. And on an on.

Perhaps we should lobby that we DBSTalk folk should be exempt from supporting those who cannot or will not do for themselves....


----------



## Alan Gordon

Doug Brott said:


> It's probably reasonable to expect relative pricing between a 2-tuner system and a 5-tuner system. The larger system is like having two DVRs in one box. There should be some expectation of higher costs involved with that. I know in my mind there is, I just don't know what the pricing model will be yet.


Don't get me wrong, because I'm of the mind that ANY company is going to try and squeeze as much blood out of the stone as they can, so I agree that there will _probably_ be higher costs involved with that, BUT here's my personal thoughts on the matter:

*WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE (re: pricing)*​
*Scenario #1:* 1 HR34 hooked to one TV - $7.00 monthly (AKA, DVR Fee)

*Scenario #2:* 1 HR34 hooked to one TV, but additional HR2x/H2x STBs on account - $7.00/$8.00 monthly lease fee.

*Scenario #3:* 1 HR34 hooked to one TV, but C30 Home Media Clients on additional TVs - $7.00 DVR fee + $3.00 WHDVR fee + $2.50/$3.00 fee per C30 HMCs.

*Scenario #4:* 1 HR34 hooked to multiple RVU-capable TVs - $7.00 DVR fee + $3.00 WHDVR fee.
NOTE: No charges for the RVU TVs may be a little TOO optimistic, but I do feel a cheaper fee is in order, so I'd say maybe a $1.00 or $2.00 per month.

I feel the HR34 will be more expensive, BUT the HR34 SHOULD (in theory) bring SOME costs down for DirecTV, and I'd like to see that be mirrored in the pricing... even though I don't expect it.

~Alan


----------



## Guest

Alan Gordon said:


> Don't get me wrong, because I'm of the mind that ANY company is going to try and squeeze as much blood out of the stone as they can, so I agree that there will _probably_ be higher costs involved with that, BUT here's my personal thoughts on the matter:
> 
> *WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE (re: pricing)*​
> *Scenario #1:* 1 HR34 hooked to one TV - $7.00 monthly (AKA, DVR Fee)
> 
> *Scenario #2:* 1 HR34 hooked to one TV, but additional HR2x/H2x STBs on account - $7.00/$8.00 monthly lease fee.
> 
> *Scenario #3:* 1 HR34 hooked to one TV, but C30 Home Media Clients on additional TVs - $7.00 DVR fee + $3.00 WHDVR fee + $2.50/$3.00 fee per C30 HMCs.
> 
> *Scenario #4:* 1 HR34 hooked to multiple RVU-capable TVs - $7.00 DVR fee + $3.00 WHDVR fee.
> NOTE: No charges for the RVU TVs may be a little TOO optimistic, but I do feel a cheaper fee is in order, so I'd say maybe a $1.00 or $2.00 per month.
> 
> I feel the HR34 will be more expensive, BUT the HR34 SHOULD (in theory) bring SOME costs down for DirecTV, and I'd like to see that be mirrored in the pricing... even though I don't expect it.
> 
> ~Alan


I like scenario #4, however if the HR34 goes down you're screwed.


----------



## Alan Gordon

CraigerCSM said:


> I like scenario #4, however if the HR34 goes down you're screwed.


Someone was telling me today that their neighbor's cable is out after a storm yesterday. When they called to report it, they were told that they wouldn't be fixing it until Friday.

From a techno-geek's POV, the HR34 sounds awesome. However, one can easily think of multiple possibilities in which it can also suck...

~Alan


----------



## cthomp21

Alan Gordon said:


> Don't get me wrong, because I'm of the mind that ANY company is going to try and squeeze as much blood out of the stone as they can, so I agree that there will _probably_ be higher costs involved with that, BUT here's my personal thoughts on the matter:
> 
> *WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE (re: pricing)*​
> *Scenario #1:* 1 HR34 hooked to one TV - $7.00 monthly (AKA, DVR Fee)
> 
> *Scenario #2:* 1 HR34 hooked to one TV, but additional HR2x/H2x STBs on account - $7.00/$8.00 monthly lease fee.
> 
> *Scenario #3:* 1 HR34 hooked to one TV, but C30 Home Media Clients on additional TVs - $7.00 DVR fee + $3.00 WHDVR fee + $2.50/$3.00 fee per C30 HMCs.
> 
> *Scenario #4:* 1 HR34 hooked to multiple RVU-capable TVs - $7.00 DVR fee + $3.00 WHDVR fee.
> NOTE: No charges for the RVU TVs may be a little TOO optimistic, but I do feel a cheaper fee is in order, so I'd say maybe a $1.00 or $2.00 per month.
> 
> I feel the HR34 will be more expensive, BUT the HR34 SHOULD (in theory) bring SOME costs down for DirecTV, and I'd like to see that be mirrored in the pricing... even though I don't expect it.
> 
> ~Alan


What I'd like to see is:

1 HR34 (2 tuners included) hooked to RVU-capable TVs or CM30s - $7.00 DVR fee + $3.00 WHDVR fee + additional tuners at $3.00/each (max of 5 in the box). I'd like D* to either sell the CM30s at around $50/each or charge a monthly fee (end user's choice).

I don't have a lot of TV watchers at my house, but I have a lot of TVs. This really makes my extra STBs add up at $6/each per month.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Just as a recall point - the HR34 is designed to be an *alternative *installation configuration to that of conventional H/HR device and SwiM-based installs (the current and most common ones).

Therefore, with just one HD DVR and multiple clients....I suspect it will have alternative pricing that fits that particular setup.


----------



## Alan Gordon

cthomp21 said:



> What I'd like to see is:
> 
> 1 HR34 (2 tuners included) hooked to RVU-capable TVs or CM30s - $7.00 DVR fee + $3.00 WHDVR fee + additional tuners at $3.00/each (max of 5 in the box). I'd like D* to either sell the CM30s at around $50/each or charge a monthly fee (end user's choice).


I'm guilty of coveting an HR34.

That being said... I'm currently only coveting one due to a couple of rumors about the STB... which, granted, could turn out to be incorrect, and I will have no interest in the HR34.

HOWEVER, I'm not real crazy about the idea of charging past the additional tuners. I could see it happening, but I hope not...



cthomp21 said:


> I don't have a lot of TV watchers at my house, but I have a lot of TVs. This really makes my extra STBs add up at $6/each per month.


Yep! With SIX DVRs in my household, there's one TV here that isn't hooked up to satellite eek2. At $6x6, that's not cheap. Right now, I prefer this setup, but should DirecTV ever embrace Dish Network's DVR pricing scheme, the HR34/CM30 alternative may be a cheaper alternative to check out...

~Alan


----------



## Thaedron

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Just as a recall point - the HR34 is designed to be an *alternative *installation configuration to that of conventional H/HR device and SwiM-based installs (the current and most common ones).
> 
> Therefore, with just one HD DVR and multiple clients....I suspect it will have alternative pricing that fits that particular setup.


Why do you think it's intended to be the alternative installation configuration? All signs have been pointing to the single household DVR with multiple non-DVR clients for the past several years. (I tried to search for the posts from a few years back with the pictures that depicted the planned evolution to a single household DVR, but am coming up blank).


----------



## Alan Gordon

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Just as a recall point - the HR34 is designed to be an *alternative *installation configuration to that of conventional H/HR device and SwiM-based installs (the current and most common ones).


One has to wonder how long it will remain an "alternative"...

Early in the product's life, it makes sense for it to remain an alternative... but as production ramps up, it's simpler and cheaper upgrade path might make it a considerably more attractive install for *NEW* customers.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Therefore, with just one HD DVR and multiple clients....I suspect it will have alternative pricing that fits that particular setup.


Yep! I'm just anxious to know the details... 

~Alan


----------



## Tom Robertson

Thaedron said:


> Why do you think it's intended to be the alternative installation configuration? All signs have been pointing to the single household DVR with multiple non-DVR clients for the past several years. (I tried to search for the posts from a few years back with the pictures that depicted the planned evolution to a single household DVR, but am coming up blank).


His point is alternative to what is happening today with multiple DVRs. You are right, the HR34 is the planned future.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Alan Gordon

Thaedron said:


> Why do you think it's intended to be the alternative installation configuration? All signs have been pointing to the single household DVR with multiple non-DVR clients for the past several years. (I tried to search for the posts from a few years back with the pictures that depicted the planned evolution to a single household DVR, but am coming up blank).


I believe I have the PDF of that, but it's at home, and I'm at work. 

~Alan


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Thaedron said:


> *Why do you think it's intended to be the alternative installation configuration?* All signs have been pointing to the single household DVR with multiple non-DVR clients for the past several years. (I tried to search for the posts from a few years back with the pictures that depicted the planned evolution to a single household DVR, but am coming up blank).


Both today's HD DVR/HD receiver configurations and HR34 deployment will be options available for installations once the HR34 is deployed, make them *alternatives*.

WHDS (MRV) is already here.

HR34 fits for those folks who want one HD DVR and nominal remote clients (their size and a limited number). For everyone else...its business as usual for a while. It's not out of the realm of possibilities a few may want ot convert for whatever reason...and I'm pretty sure they'll have a means to accomodate that scenario.


----------



## Daniel

I'm considering converting to the HR34 just to get rid of my slow HR22s, but I'll wait until after the HD GUI upgrade to see if that makes them more usable. Of course I may end up jumping ship if more HD basic networks are not added "soon".


----------



## LameLefty

Daniel said:


> I'm considering converting to the HR34 just to get rid of my slow HR22s, but I'll wait until after the HD GUI upgrade to see if that makes them more usable. Of course I may end up jumping ship if more HD basic networks are not added "soon".


Probably not a good plan. No one knows when the HR34 will be generally available, nor how much it will cost, or even the pricing model. For under two hundred dollars you can replace an HR22 with an HR24, which is MUCH faster, and you can do it today, not sometime in the fall if/when a new UI is rolled out, and not sometime in the future when HR34's may become generally available to buyers.


----------



## Daniel

Actually, it would be $600 to replace all three of my HR22s with HR24s. That might not be an large expense for you, but it is one where I don't mind waiting until the HD GUI comes out to see if it is worth it. If the HD GUI speeds things up enough, I might not need to do anything. But if I do need to upgrade, I'm hoping the HR34 with 2 or 3 clients will come in under the $600 mark. 

But regardless, I also don't want to start another 2-year commitment until I see if DirecTV finally ups it basic network HD commitment.


----------



## Vinny

Doug Brott said:


> We saw this at CES this past January, so I know they exist. Can't wait to see one at my house.


I want one...I want one really bad. Did I say that I really want one?


----------



## Guest

I wonder if DTV will replace their main DVR with a HR-34 server fee? Isn't like $10.00 for the main HD DVR service fee? If so, I wonder if DTV would do a $10 HR-34 fee on top of the $10.00 HD DVR fee? Or would they combine the two into one $10 fee?


----------



## Shades228

CraigerCSM said:


> I wonder if DTV will replace their main DVR with a HR-34 server fee? Isn't like $10.00 for the main HD DVR service fee? If so, I wonder if DTV would do a $10 HR-34 fee on top of the $10.00 HD DVR fee? Or would they combine the two into one $10 fee?


HD Access is $10 
DVR Service is $7

I don't see them changing either one just because of a receiver. They can just say that those services are required, like they do now, for the HR34.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

CraigerCSM said:


> I wonder if DTV will replace their main DVR with a HR-34 server fee? Isn't like $10.00 for the main HD DVR service fee? If so, I wonder if DTV would do a $10 HR-34 fee on top of the $10.00 HD DVR fee? Or would they combine the two into one $10 fee?


DVR fee is $7.00 (Covers all DVR's)
First receiver fee is Included in base price
Second receiver is $6.00
HD access fee is $10.00 which may be waived for 24 Mos. with autopay.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Shades228 said:


> HD Access is $10
> DVR Service is $7
> 
> I don't see them changing either one just because of a receiver. They can just say that those services are required, like they do now, for the HR34.


well HD is free with auto bill pay so the HD fee may just go away and end being built into some other fee or the base cost.


----------



## Shades228

JoeTheDragon said:


> well HD is free with auto bill pay so the HD fee may just go away and end being built into some other fee or the base cost.


Regardless of promotions they charge $10 for it and still require it. While I could see a line of base packages happening in October, as well, it doesn't change the requirements for current and people that would be on legacy packages.


----------



## Guest

I guess the HR34 is realy good for households with more then two TV's? If someone only has two TV's it would be cheaper to have to have two boxes. What if DTV merged the HD fee and DVR fee into a $17 a month fee for HR34 users only?


----------



## Guest

Scott Kocourek said:


> DVR fee is $7.00 (Covers all DVR's)
> First receiver fee is Included in base price
> Second receiver is $6.00
> HD access fee is $10.00 which may be waived for 24 Mos. with autopay.


Thanks, I forgot the names of the fees.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> I guess the HR34 is realy good for households with more then two TV's? If someone only has two TV's it would be cheaper to have to have two boxes. What if DTV merged the HD fee and DVR fee into a $17 a month fee for HR34 users only?


Well, we don't know the cost of an HR34 so that's not really a known .. BUT .. if it were to be $299 and existing boxes were $199 I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that a more complex two-box solution is cheaper than a one box solution.

Secondly .. What's the difference in a $10 HD Fee plus a $7 DVR fee and a combined HD + DVR fee for $17. Why does it matter if they are separated or together and why would it only be for the HR34?

I really don't understand your questions because they defy logic.


----------



## Guest

If you have the $10 HD access fee and $7 DVR fee + say a $10 HR34 fee and a $3 MRV fee that equals $30.00 vs. $17 + $6 mirroring fee for the second box equals $23.00. Unless the $7 DVR fee would include an HR34?


----------



## RobertE

CraigerCSM said:


> If you have the $10 HD access fee and $7 DVR fee + say a $10 HR34 fee and a $3 MRV fee that equals $30.00 vs. $17 + $6 mirroring fee for the second box equals $23.00. Unless the $7 DVR fee would include an HR34?


Now your pulling numbers out of the air. Are you asking a serious question, or looking for an arguement? 

No public pricing has been released yet. Those that may/do know are not able to say. Just remain calm and patient until those numbers are released.

We could play "what ifs" all day long with what may or may not be charged.


----------



## Guest

RobertE said:


> Now your pulling numbers out of the air. Are you asking a serious question, or looking for an arguement?
> 
> No public pricing has been released yet. Those that may/do know are not able to say. Just remain calm and patient until those numbers are released.
> 
> We could play "what ifs" all day long with what may or may not be charged.


I was speculating about what an HR34 fee might be. Other members were also speculating about fees in this thread.


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> If you have the $10 HD access fee and $7 DVR fee + say a $10 HR34 fee and a $3 MRV fee that equals $30.00 vs. $17 + $6 mirroring fee for the second box equals $23.00. Unless the $7 DVR fee would include an HR34?


I don't think an account would have both a DVR fee and an HR34 fee. I would expect it would be either the DVR fee or a slightly higher DVR fee.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> I don't think an account would have both a DVR fee and an HR34 fee. I would expect it would be either the DVR fee or a slightly higher DVR fee.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Cool, I just hope RVU clients don't get charged a mirroring fee.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> What if DTV merged the HD fee and DVR fee into a $17 a month fee for HR34 users only?


In order to have even an HR2x on your account today, you are required to subscribe to both HD Access and DVR Service. There is no reason for this structure to change with the HR34.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> Cool, I just hope RVU clients don't get charged a mirroring fee.


It's highly doubtful that they'll charge a mirroring fee for RVU clients.


----------



## Thaedron

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Both today's HD DVR/HD receiver configurations and HR34 deployment will be options available for installations once the HR34 is deployed, make them *alternatives*.
> 
> WHDS (MRV) is already here.
> 
> HR34 fits for those folks who want one HD DVR and nominal remote clients (their size and a limited number). For everyone else...its business as usual for a while. It's not out of the realm of possibilities a few may want ot convert for whatever reason...and I'm pretty sure they'll have a means to accomodate that scenario.


Tom cleared it up, you are speaking of the near-term once the HR34 rolls out, I was speaking of the longer term and planned evolution.


----------



## BattleScott

CraigerCSM said:


> Cool, I just hope RVU clients don't get charged a mirroring fee.





Jeremy W said:


> It's highly doubtful that they'll charge a mirroring fee for RVU clients.


Given that they are trying to get the FCC to approve RVU as an acceptable alternative to AllVid, I would agree. I suspect that we will see a single fee for the HMC device that will include the DVR service, MRV fee and RVU clients. My guess is somewhere around $19.99. Then the only other fees will be for any additional leased receivers.

If this turns out to be true, I think I will probably sign-up for it.


----------



## Doug Brott

BattleScott said:


> Given that they are trying to get the FCC to approve RVU as an acceptable alternative to AllVid, I would agree. I suspect that we will see a single fee for the HMC device that will include the DVR service, MRV fee and RVU clients. My guess is somewhere around $19.99. Then the only other fees will be for any additional leased receivers.
> 
> If this turns out to be true, I think I will probably sign-up for it.


They could do bundled pricing because all would really need to be there for this device anyway. The issue is with additional DVRs .. would that bundle cover the other device (HR24, etc.)? What if you had 2 HR34s?


----------



## Guest

Would they charge per tuner?


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Would they charge per tuner?


They might ..


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> They might ..


Then wouldn't you be right back to the mirroring fees? Isn't RVU supposed to eliminate those?


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> Then wouldn't you be right back to the mirroring fees?


No. Mirror fees are per receiver, not per tuner.


CraigerCSM said:


> Isn't RVU supposed to eliminate those?


RVU probably will eliminate the traditional mirror fee, but that's not the goal of RVU.


----------



## Guest

Jeremy W said:


> No. Mirror fees are per receiver, not per tuner.
> 
> RVU probably will eliminate the traditional mirror fee, but that's not the goal of RVU.


I know mirroring fees are per receiver it just sounds to me if they did charge per tunner DTV would just be changing the mirroring fee name to a tuner fee name for the HR34. Then maybe still charge $6 per tuner just like the mirroring fee cost?


----------



## BattleScott

Doug Brott said:


> They could do bundled pricing because all would really need to be there for this device anyway. The issue is with additional DVRs .. would that bundle cover the other device (HR24, etc.)? What if you had 2 HR34s?


There are 2 different modes being supported with the device, RVU and MRV.
By my way of thinking, RVU would be included as well as DVR and MRV fees in the "one-price". Additonal leased boxes will likely be assessed the same lease fee as is in place now. The only question would be; if they are additional DVRs, are they covered under the HMC's DVR service?

I would imagine 2 HR34s would be billed as 2 seperate systems. Whatever the HMC system price is x 2.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> I know mirroring fees are per receiver it just sounds to me if they did charge per tunner DTV would just be changing the mirroring fee name to a tuner fee name for the HR34. Then maybe still charge $6 per tuner just like the mirroring fee cost?


That's certainly a possibility.


----------



## David Ortiz

The HR34 takes 5 SWiM channels. What does a C30 take? Zero? It doesn't have a sat tuner, so it wouldn't need one for that.


----------



## Jeremy W

David Ortiz said:


> The HR34 takes 5 SWiM channels. What does a C30 take? Zero? It doesn't have a sat tuner, so it wouldn't need one for that.


Correct, since the C30 has zero tuners it would use zero SWM channels.


----------



## Guest

Jeremy W said:


> That's certainly a possibility.


If DTV does it that way, then why not just keep DTV boxes hooked up to each TV? The only advantage RVU would have then is allowing you to hook up DTV to other devices with RVU built in like HDTV,'s BluRay player, PC's ect instead of using DTV's boxes.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> If DTV does it that way, then why not just keep DTV boxes hooked up to each TV? The only advantage RVU would have then is allowing you to hook up DTV to other devices with RVU built in like HDTV,'s BluRay player, PC's ect instead of using DTV's boxes.


The thing you specify as RVU's "only advantage" is the entire reason RVU was created in the first place. The whole point of RVU is to eliminate having a receiver at every TV.


----------



## Alan Gordon

BattleScott said:


> There are 2 different modes being supported with the device, RVU and MRV.
> By my way of thinking, RVU would be included as well as DVR and MRV fees in the "one-price". Additonal leased boxes will likely be assessed the same lease fee as is in place now. The only question would be; if they are additional DVRs, are they covered under the HMC's DVR service?
> 
> I would imagine 2 HR34s would be billed as 2 seperate systems. Whatever the HMC system price is x 2.


I'm sure it's probably naive, but if the C30s turn out to be nothing more than "dumb" clients, I'd like to see a cheaper fee for them (if not a one time fee).

Also... the HMC could have a DVR fee that included other DVRs, but have a more expensive lease fee.

~Alan


----------



## hdtvfan0001

They *could* count tuners..then again....they could also count *client* units.

Since its an entirely different deployment framework, traditional Access Card and other tracking could be modified with this device when its released.

Either way...we'll likely see the approach in the weeks or months ahead.


----------



## Guest

Jeremy W said:


> The thing you specify as RVU's "only advantage" is the entire reason RVU was created in the first place. The whole point of RVU is to eliminate having a receiver at every TV.


Yes but their still sounds like DTV might still have some type of a receiver fee no matter if you use a DTV Receiver or your own RVU device. I think their shouldn't be an RVU fee or a tuner fee, just a set fee of say $20 a month for the HR-34. That $20 would include the HD access fee, DVR fee and the MRV fee.


----------



## Jeremy W

Alan Gordon said:


> I'm sure it's probably naive, but if the C30s turn out to be nothing more than "dumb" clients, I'd like to see a cheaper fee for them (if not a one time fee).


We already know that the C30 is just an RVU client. It has no satellite tuners.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> Yes but their still sounds like DTV might still have some type of a receiver fee no matter if you use a DTV Receiver or your own RVU device.


Yes, they might. We have no idea what the pricing will look like. But everyone who has half a clue agrees that a per-client fee for RVU is highly unlikely, and a per-tuner fee is the way DirecTV will go.


----------



## Guest

Alan Gordon said:


> I'm sure it's probably naive, but if the C30s turn out to be nothing more than "dumb" clients, I'd like to see a cheaper fee for them (if not a one time fee).
> 
> Also... the HMC could have a DVR fee that included other DVRs, but have a more expensive lease fee.
> 
> ~Alan


I wonder what the RVU adapters will look like? Will they be like ethernet cards? Would they have the RVU chip and coax cable input and that card would work with HDMI output of the RVU device? With new PC's they would have an option of ordering an RVU adapter?


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> I wonder what the RVU adapters will look like?


They'll look like the H25. Possibly a little smaller, but not much.


CraigerCSM said:


> With new PC's they would have an option of ordering an RVU adapter?


A PC could become an RVU client with nothing more than software. If it works with DIRECTV2PC today, it could absolutely be an RVU client if the proper software were released.


----------



## Guest

Jeremy W said:


> They'll look like the H25. Possibly a little smaller, but not much.


I read one article were they said that RVU devices would have the chip built into them would that mean you wouldn't need something like the H25? If you had an H25 that would still be another box in addition to having an RVU box like a PC or BluRay player. So the set-top box wouldn't be eliminated.


----------



## spartanstew

CraigerCSM said:


> I read one article were they said that RVU devices would have the chip built into them would that mean you wouldn't need something like the H25?


Yes.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> I read one article were they said that RVU devices would have the chip built into them would that mean you wouldn't need something like the H25? If you had an H25 that would still be another box in addition to having an RVU box like a PC or BluRay player. So the set-top box wouldn't be eliminated.


The point of the C30 (not H25) is to allow TVs that do not have RVU built-in to connect to the HR34 via RVU. If the TV (or other device) has RVU built-in, it would not need the C30 or any other device.


----------



## Guest

spartanstew said:


> Yes.


Would that RVU device with the chip built in also have a coax input?


----------



## Guest

Jeremy W said:


> The point of the C30 (not H25) is to allow TVs that do not have RVU built-in to connect to the HR34 via RVU. If the TV (or other device) has RVU built-in, it would not need the C30 or any other device.


Cool. That a good idea for non RVU equipment. So PC's wouldn't need a RVU chip built in just software? I wonder if PC makers and Apple are working with DTV on that?


----------



## spartanstew

CraigerCSM said:


> Would that RVU device with the chip built in also have a coax input?


Probably.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Jeremy W said:


> We already know that the C30 is just an RVU client. It has no satellite tuners.


My fault for not going into detail. Yes, we do know that the C30 is just an RVU client. What we DON'T know is how complex it is compared to an H2x. If it's just a tuner-less H2x, then forget what I'm saying, but if it's a much cheaper to manufacture device, then I'd love to see them have a cheaper fee (or better yet, none at all).

~Alan


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> Cool. That a good idea for non RVU equipment. So PC's wouldn't need a RVU chip built in just software? I wonder if PC makers and Apple are working with DTV on that?


They don't have to work with DirecTV. RVU isn't DirecTV's spec, they're just a member.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jeremy W said:


> They don't have to work with DirecTV. RVU isn't DirecTV's spec, they're just a member.


Jeremy is right.

There's a bigger picture in play - RVU - with a good number of manufacturer folks in that Alliance.

DirecTV will simply look to have their own deployment of products/services that fit that platform. That's what the HR34 is really all about.


----------



## Guest

spartanstew said:


> Probably.


Would the RVU clients with adapters built into them be basically like ethernet cards? The ethernet card would have the RVU chip and coax input on the card so a Deca adapter would hook up to it?


----------



## Doug Brott

Samsung already has this. It's built in not some add on card. It uses the same Ethernet port used for every other Internet app already in the TV.


----------



## harsh

CraigerCSM said:


> Would that RVU device with the chip built in also have a coax input?


To date, the C30 appears to be the only RVU capable device featuring DECA (or any other flavor of MoCA). The Samsung TVs feature Ethernet and Wi-fi (sometimes optionally).


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There's a bigger picture in play - RVU - with a good number of manufacturer folks in that Alliance.


Outside of Comcast, DIRECTV and Time Warner Cable, most associated with the RVU Allicance seem to be hardware companies. I think the Alliance needs to concentrate on folding in companies that might utilize the technology as opposed to having the standards driven by the hardware weenies. The fiasco that is CableCard must not be repeated.

While the NCTA and the NAB are a handful to be certain, they must buy in to make RVU fly. I include the NAB because I see OTA delivery of protected content as being something that NAB members could be interested in (I remember OnTV).


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Outside of Comcast, DIRECTV and Time Warner Cable, most associated with the RVU Allicance seem to be hardware companies. I think the Alliance needs to concentrate on folding in companies that might utilize the technology as opposed to having the standards driven by the hardware weenies.


Since Comcast, DirecTV, and TWC, as well as some of the largest HDTV manufacturers in the U.S. are in the RVU alliance already, and committed to its standards - your assessment is way off base.

RVU is already is supported by companies that represent an astronomical number of consumer TV subscribers, therefore, they are *collectively* in an easy position to influence adoption.

Easy connectivity with standards. Simplified installations.

The "hardware weenies" happen to have driven most of the HDTV standards for decades now - why anyone would think that would change is a real mystery.

As a closing point - I have no real love for nor personal value in anything RVU, yet I can at least understand what it's about and why it's coming.


----------



## Drucifer

Doug Brott said:


> They could do bundled pricing because all would really need to be there for this device anyway. The issue is with additional DVRs .. would that bundle cover the other device (HR24, etc.)? What if you had 2 HR34s?


Well, after reading the manual, I plan to get the HR34 and retire two of my HR21-100, by replacing one HR21 with my now extra H21. In the end, I would have a HR34, a HR21, two H21 & a H25.

Except for gaining PIP in the room with the HR34, I not really enjoying a lot of new features in the change over. So hitting me with increase cost would put the brakes any equipment change.

I do hope DirecTV keep that in mind when they figuring out the monthly charge for the HR34.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The "hardware weenies" happen to have driven most of the HDTV standards for decades now - why anyone would think that would change is a real mystery.


As evidence of why wider involvement is needed, I would cite the remarkably fragile design of the HDMI connector, the failure to come up with a singular 3D video standard and the aforementioned CableCard experiment. Another of my favorite examples is the USB versus Firewire battle.

Wider involvement requires greater up-front investment but it also means that the investment is less likely to be lost. Ultimately it should pay off with greater economies of scale with everyone rowing in the same direction.


----------



## NR4P

Alan Gordon said:


> My fault for not going into detail. Yes, we do know that the C30 is just an RVU client. What we DON'T know is how complex it is compared to an H2x. If it's just a tuner-less H2x, then forget what I'm saying, but if it's a much cheaper to manufacture device, then I'd love to see them have a cheaper fee (or better yet, none at all).
> 
> ~Alan


Even if you own your receiver/dvr hardware and paid $700 for it, you still pay a fee for additional receivers. Its an economics model to bring in $ and I doubt even an RVU TV is going to avoid the mirror or lease or receiver or whatever they call it fee.

Its revenue they won't let disappear.


----------



## Tom Robertson

harsh said:


> As evidence of why wider involvement is needed, I would cite the remarkably fragile design of the HDMI connector, the failure to come up with a singular 3D video standard and the aforementioned CableCard experiment. Another of my favorite examples is the USB versus Firewire battle.
> 
> Wider involvement requires greater up-front investment but it also means that the investment is less likely to be lost. Ultimately it should pay off with greater economies of scale with everyone rowing in the same direction.


You're right, involvement is very much needed. And I think one of the other very important parties that need to be involved is the FCC. If Allvid goes significantly different from RVU, RVU might die in favor of AllVid. (Not that they are really that different at some levels.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Alan Gordon

NR4P said:


> Even if you own your receiver/dvr hardware and paid $700 for it, you still pay a fee for additional receivers. Its an economics model to bring in $ and I doubt even an RVU TV is going to avoid the mirror or lease or receiver or whatever they call it fee.
> 
> Its revenue they won't let disappear.


I'm very aware of the the fact that you pay the same monthly fee for owned equipment as you do leased. I'm also smart enough to realize the economic reasons why DirecTV would want to (most likely) continue with that... and not having access to the neccessary information, I have no idea if it would even be feasible...

Do you know that I pay $30 a month in lease/mirroring fees? Add on another $7.00 for DVR service, and of course $3.00 for WHDVR, and you have me paying $40 a month in order to simply watch the programming I pay for each month where I want to watch (when I want to watch it).

Everybody I know has Dish Network but four people. Two have OTA, one has DirecTV, and one has Cable (Mediacom). Over the years, I've heard the Mediacom subscriber complain multiple times about her service... and have (on multiple ocassions) asked her why she didn't switch to satellite for better reliability, service, and bargain (less so than years ago on the last one, but still some), and her answer was always the same. Mirroring fees. By the time she added up the amount of mirroring fees she'd be paying, she realized it was cheaper to stay where she was.

Years ago, I would subscribe to some premiums... not necessarily all year long, and sometimes I'd subscribe to one for a few months, then change to another, etc., but I'd still do it. However, yearly bill increases, adding a DVR fee, additional mirroring/lease fees, and of course the WHDVR fee, adding up to $40 a month before programming fees and sales tax, I can no longer justify the costs of premiums. Basically I decided to settle for less programming in order to watch what it in more places when I wanted to (as I stated above).

Now... DirecTV probably doesn't make as much revenue on premiums as they do on mirroring/lease fees, and in this economy, a lot of people would probably use any savings on other things instead of upgrading their package... ... just like I feel that the odds of a large company reducing their costs and then passing it on to the consumer are a longshot compared to a company reducing their costs and benefiting from those same reduced costs...

... BUT I WAS throwing the idea out there into the universe. No, I'm not "naive" enough to expect it, BUT you know what they say about "wishes" and "buts" don't you? If they were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.... 

~Alan


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> As evidence of why wider involvement is needed, I would cite the remarkably fragile design of the HDMI connector, the failure to come up with a singular 3D video standard and the aforementioned CableCard experiment. Another of my favorite examples is the USB versus Firewire battle.


...and yet despite all that loss of sleep over it...HDMI has been adopted by virtually all manufacturers as a standard in the HDTV world. In the PC world, USB is similar.

There's always something proposed as new in technology. It's the nature of the beast. Not every new idea is a good idea, despite marketing attempts to alter that reality.

In the case of the topic of this thread, the fact that there is proposed adoption through some of the biggest names in the industry at least assure some significant investment towards RVU becoming more commonplace. Whether it becomes widespread remains to be seen anyway, just like almost anything new in the techy world.


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> If Allvid goes significantly different from RVU, RVU might die in favor of AllVid. (Not that they are really that different at some levels.)


The significant different between RVU and AllVid is the fact that RVU lets the provider control the entire GUI. For that reason alone, I hope AllVid kills RVU. Even the leading providers, DirecTV and Comcast, are still just talking about their shiny new HD GUIs. They innovate far too slowly, and IMO should just get out of that business completely. Let the STB manufacturers do it.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In the case of the topic of this thread, the fact that there is proposed adoption through some of the biggest names in the industry at least assure some significant investment towards RVU becoming more commonplace.


Betamax had the hearts and minds of some of the biggest players in the industry in its day. Few had heard of Victor Company of Japan.

Consider also the onslaught of digital film formats that all came out more or less at once and what a mess that was. Blu-ray versus HD-DVD was a great example of marketing over matter. Letting the market decide can be a long and disappointing process.


----------



## LameLefty

"Jeremy W" said:


> The significant different between RVU and AllVid is the fact that RVU lets the provider control the entire GUI. For that reason alone, I hope AllVid kills RVU. Even the leading providers, DirecTV and Comcast, are still just talking about their shiny new HD GUIs. They innovate far too slowly, and IMO should just get out of that business completely. Let the STB manufacturers do it.


Consistency of the user interface - for good or for ill - is the whole purpose behind RVU.


----------



## Jeremy W

LameLefty said:


> Consistency of the user interface - for good or for ill - is the whole purpose behind RVU.


Yep, and that's why I don't like it. Even with AllVid, providers will be able to offer STBs with their interface. However, subscribers won't be forced to use them. Which is the way it should be.


----------



## joshjr

CraigerCSM said:


> I know mirroring fees are per receiver it just sounds to me if they did charge per tunner DTV would just be changing the mirroring fee name to a tuner fee name for the HR34. *Then maybe still charge $6 per tuner just like the mirroring fee cost?*


Its not $6 per tuner now. It $6 per 2 tuners right?


----------



## harsh

Jeremy W said:


> The significant different between RVU and AllVid is the fact that RVU lets the provider control the entire GUI.


DIRECTV's support model appears to be built on declaring and making the user experience as uniform as possible. Your viewpoint would seem to be decidedly at odds with that model. I suspect that most would be happy with an interface that was better scalable as opposed to more widely configurable.

Maybe the whole "user experience" thing is a marketing fad and every interface should be fully skinnable. It would certainly make driving a rental car easier.


----------



## Jeremy W

joshjr said:


> Its not $6 per tuner now. It $6 per 2 tuners right?


Nope, there are no per-tuner fees at all. It's $6 per receiver, regardless of how many tuners it has.


----------



## joshjr

Drucifer said:


> Well, after reading the manual, I plan to get the HR34 and retire two of my HR21-100, by replacing one HR21 with my now extra H21. In the end, I would have a HR34, a HR21, two H21 & a H25.
> 
> Except for gaining PIP in the room with the HR34, I not really enjoying a lot of new features in the change over. So hitting me with increase cost would put the brakes any equipment change.
> 
> I do hope DirecTV keep that in mind when they figuring out the monthly charge for the HR34.


I agree. I want a HR34 for 1 TV and no not ever plan to use MRV. I just need more tuners in one box. I also dont want to pay $20 a month to have that. What would they charge is someone owned the box instead of leased it? That should be a little different considering they made their money on the box. I dont know. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. There would have to be some way that a person would qualify for that model since you cant specify models right?


----------



## Jeremy W

harsh said:


> DIRECTV's support model appears to be built on declaring and making the user experience as uniform as possible.


Every TV provider does this, DirecTV is not unique.


----------



## joshjr

Jeremy W said:


> Nope, there are no per-tuner fees at all. It's $6 per receiver, regardless of how many tuners it has.


That's why I have a hard time getting down the possibility of paying $20 for one box. Don't really make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## Jeremy W

joshjr said:


> That's why I have a hard time getting down the possibility of paying $20 for one box. Don't really make a lot of sense to me.


What doesn't make sense is charging $6 for the HR34 as if it's no different from what's out now. This box is unlike any other box DirecTV has. It can feed live TV with DVR control to multiple devices simultaneously. That's why the pricing will be different.


----------



## joshjr

Jeremy W said:


> What doesn't make sense is charging $6 for the HR34 as if it's no different from what's out now. This box is unlike any other box DirecTV has. It can feed live TV with DVR control to multiple devices simultaneously. That's why the pricing will be different.


For someone like me that does not want it to feed live to to different TV's why pay extra? I just want more tuners in one box for 1 TV. I have never and will never sub to MRV.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

NR4P said:


> Even if you own your receiver/dvr hardware and paid $700 for it, you still pay a fee for additional receivers. Its an economics model to bring in $ and I doubt even an RVU TV is going to avoid the mirror or lease or receiver or whatever they call it fee.
> 
> Its revenue they won't let disappear.


But if cable with allvid or RVU has no mirroring / outlet fee then D* will likely be forced to drop them as well.


----------



## Jeremy W

joshjr said:


> For someone like me that does not want it to feed live to to different TV's why pay extra? I just want more tuners in one box for 1 TV. I have never and will never sub to MRV.


That's great for you, but this box is first and foremost designed to feed multiple TVs. Having a larger number of tuners is a necessary side effect. Whether you actually want to feed multiple TVs or not, if you want this box you're going to pay for that functionality.


----------



## joshjr

Jeremy W said:


> That's great for you, but this box is first and foremost designed to feed multiple TVs. Having a larger number of tuners is a necessary side effect. Whether you actually want to feed multiple TVs or not, if you want this box you're going to pay for that functionality.


That depends on how you look at it. That should be in the monthly charges for like MRV or something else. The box is capable of it so what. Charge more for the box then up front but not a set fee for things people may or may not use.


----------



## Jeremy W

joshjr said:


> That depends on how you look at it. That should be in the monthly charges for like MRV or something else. The box is capable of it so what. Charge more for the box then up front but not a set fee for things people may or may not use.


You're a fringe case. Pricing is setup to make it simple for the majority. That's the bottom line.


----------



## joshjr

Jeremy W said:


> You're a fringe case. Pricing is setup to make it simple for the majority. That's the bottom line.


True but like I said charge me more for the up front cost and let the normal DVR, HD, and extra receiver fees stand as they normally would.


----------



## Mike Greer

DirecTV isn't in business to be nice guys... The HR34 was developed so DirecTV could make money and/or save money thus improving the bottom line. It wasn't developed to save their customers money. Why would they spend one dime to hurt their profits?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Betamax had the hearts and minds of some of the biggest players in the industry in its day. Few had heard of Victor Company of Japan.


Could anyone come up with a more abstract, more irrelevant comparison to RVU and HR34?

Doubtful.


----------



## Drucifer

Mike Greer said:


> DirecTV isn't in business to be nice guys... The HR34 was developed so DirecTV could make money and/or save money thus improving the bottom line. It wasn't developed to save their customers money. Why would they spend one dime to hurt their profits?


Well making a receiver that will replace many receivers is one way to save on manufacturing cost. The Q is - do they pass on the savings?


----------



## RAD

Mike Greer said:


> DirecTV isn't in business to be nice guys... The HR34 was developed so DirecTV could make money and/or save money thus improving the bottom line. It wasn't developed to save their customers money. Why would they spend one dime to hurt their profits?


Since we don't know that the pricing will turn out to be maybe a bit early to come to that conclusion.

Remember the HR34, with the C30 or a TV with RVU client support, will behave like a HD DVR at each location. So with being able to support 3 RVU clients that's 3 TV's that would have HD DVR functionality without having to shell out the initial charge for a HD DVR, that's $600 minus the cost of the C30, so that could be a savings there. Of course that would be effected by the HR34's upfront charge and what the monthly charge, if any, would be.

But this could be a win for DIRECTV, even if the long term costs come out higher, since a big complaint new customers have is the upfront costs for hardware. They look at what do I have to pay now usually and I'd guess even with C30 costs figured in the HR34/C30 config will come out cheaper then multiple HR2X's.


----------



## Doug Brott

Drucifer said:


> Well making a receiver that will replace many receivers is one way to save on manufacturing cost. The Q is - do they pass on the savings?


I'd suspect "yes" over the long term, but not really in the way you may be thinking. Specifically I think that it will help keep the costs from going up as quickly. So you won't really see a reduction in the bill and you (meaning everyone, not you specifically) won't fully appreciate the savings that follow because you won't be able to see them.

In other words, it gets built into the pricing model, but we won't see anything specific other than an HR34 that is almost assuredly going to cost more per month than an HR24.

What I don't know is if DIRECTV is going to charge a higher fee for ALL HR34s regardless of use or if they are going to limit the number of tuners and create multiple tiers of pricing. The latter option would give the consumer the greatest number of choices, but the former option will keep everything consistent.


----------



## Doug Brott

RAD said:


> But this could be a win for DIRECTV, even if the long term costs come out higher, since a big complaint new customers have is the upfront costs for hardware. They look at what do I have to pay now usually and I'd guess even with C30 costs figured in the HR34/C30 config will come out cheaper then multiple HR2X's.


Not to mention that anyone who picks up a new RVU capable TV over the next several years will (in theory) have all they need to hook into the HR34 at no additional cost.


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Could anyone come up with a more abstract, more irrelevant comparison to RVU and HR34?
> 
> Doubtful.


Why is it so abstract? Currently, companies are positioning themselves behind RVU or AllVid in effort to become "the standard". On the surface, RVU (via DirecTV proxy) is "just seeking to be approved as an alternative". But in reality, that would make it the dominant format for all PayTV services. RVU is an alliance of STB manufacturers and PayTV providers seeking to protect at least a portion of the current cash cow that is the closed STB market.

IF the FCC is short-sighted enough to approve RVU as an alternative to AllVid, you will NEVER EVER see AllVid gateways offered by the pay tv industry. They will instaed produce RVU enabled proprietary servers (HR-34s) that command HUGE monthly fees and long-term commitments and the concept of open competiton in the STB market will die a miserable, painful death all over again just as it did with the corrupt CableCard fiasco.

The AllVid Alliance is exactly the opposite, an alliance of companies seeking to push the format that will create an open market for the STB devices.

Sounds very close to just about any "format-war" that has ever been fought.


----------



## Jeremy W

BattleScott said:


> Sounds very close to just about any "format-war" that has ever been fought.


Except in this case, consumer choice is a huge issue instead of just a bunch of technical checkboxes that are usually the issues in format wars. RVU kills consumer choice, AllVid allows it to flourish.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

There's not even format "hand slapping" going on right now, let alone anything resembling a battle.



Jeremy W said:


> Except in this case, consumer choice is a huge issue instead of just a bunch of technical checkboxes that are usually the issues in format wars. RVU kills consumer choice, AllVid allows it to flourish.


Yup....quite true.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> Not to mention that anyone who picks up a new RVU capable TV over the next several years will (in theory) have all they need to hook into the HR34 at no additional cost.


DTV still might charge per tuner with HR34 and to me that will still sounds like a mirroring fee.


----------



## Guest

joshjr said:


> That's why I have a hard time getting down the possibility of paying $20 for one box. Don't really make a lot of sense to me.


If you get HD you still pay $10 for the HD Fee and a $7 DVR fee. If you add MRV its an additional $3 fee, that's $20.00. Plus $6.00 for mirroring fees for extra receivers. What is not known is if DTV will charge in addition to those fees to use the HR-34.


----------



## Drucifer

BattleScott said:


> Why is it so abstract? Currently, companies are positioning themselves behind RVU or AllVid in effort to become "the standard". On the surface, RVU (via DirecTV proxy) is "just seeking to be approved as an alternative". But in reality, that would make it the dominant format for all PayTV services. RVU is an alliance of STB manufacturers and PayTV providers seeking to protect at least a portion of the current cash cow that is the closed STB market.
> 
> IF the FCC is short-sighted enough to approve RVU as an alternative to AllVid, you will NEVER EVER see AllVid gateways offered by the pay tv industry. They will instead produce RVU enabled proprietary servers (HR-34s) that command HUGE monthly fees and long-term commitments and the concept of open competition in the STB market will die a miserable, painful death all over again just as it did with the corrupt CableCard fiasco.
> 
> The AllVid Alliance is exactly the opposite, an alliance of companies seeking to push the format that will create an open market for the STB devices.
> 
> Sounds very close to just about any "format-war" that has ever been fought.


Price will always be the deciding factor for most consumers.


----------



## Doug Brott

Jeremy W said:


> Except in this case, consumer choice is a huge issue instead of just a bunch of technical checkboxes that are usually the issues in format wars. RVU kills consumer choice, AllVid allows it to flourish.


I don't entirely buy this comment. I know exactly where you are coming from, but in both cases, you wouldn't have to get a new client box for remote locations. I think that this is a bigger key than having a "smart" box at each remote location as outlined in Allvid.

The consumer will pay more for the smart box as part of buy-in. The dumb client can be mass produced much cheaper. The consumer will have a choice in what the see on the screen by choosing which vendor they buy the gateway/server from.

No doubt that this will crimp the likes of TiVo or other interface builders, but will it really be the less consumer friendly choice? It's not as black and white for me as it is apparently for you.


----------



## Jeremy W

Doug Brott said:


> I think that this is a bigger key than having a "smart" box at each remote location as outlined in Allvid.
> 
> The consumer will pay more for the smart box as part of buy-in. The dumb client can be mass produced much cheaper.


I disagree with this. No matter what protocol is used, the client must be able to decode video. That is where the real cost comes from. Whether the GUI is generated on a remote server or generated at the client isn't *that* big of a processing difference with today's chips. Hell, just take a look at the size of the C30's firmware on your site. It's bigger than the H20's.


Doug Brott said:


> The consumer will have a choice in what the see on the screen by choosing which vendor they buy the gateway/server from.


How so? The whole point of RVU is that the provider (aka the one who you get the gateway/server from) controls the GUI. So if you're subscribed to DirecTV, you're getting their GUI because you have to get their gateway. The only "choice" you have is in what clients you use, although those clients can't have their own GUI so it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Doug Brott

Jeremy W said:


> How so?


Read the rest of the sentence you quoted


----------



## Jeremy W

Doug Brott said:


> Read the rest of the sentence you quoted


I addressed the rest of the sentence in my post, because I believe it's incorrect:


Jeremy W said:


> The whole point of RVU is that the provider (aka the one who you get the gateway/server from) controls the GUI. So if you're subscribed to DirecTV, you're getting their GUI because you have to get their gateway.


The provider controls the gateway, so with RVU that means they control the GUI.

Now, even with AllVid, RVU could still exist. There would be nothing stopping DirecTV from making an HR44 that receives input from DirecTV's (or anyone else's!) AllVid gateway instead of the dish directly, and then acts as an RVU server from there. The difference is, you wouldn't *have* to use it.


----------



## Doug Brott

It's OK .. to you it's black and white .. To me it's a lot of gray. It's all good.


----------



## Jeremy W

Doug Brott said:


> It's OK .. to you it's black and white .. To me it's a lot of gray. It's all good.


I just don't know if we're on the same page. You seemed to indicate in your post that with RVU, the subscriber would be able to choose the GUI. But that goes against the whole purpose of RVU, so I'm confused.


----------



## Doug Brott

The choice of GUI is made by choosing a different vendor (i.e. Comcast, DISH, etc.) over DIRECTV. That choice is about as existent as Allvid is these days.


----------



## joshjr

CraigerCSM said:


> If you get HD you still pay $10 for the HD Fee and a $7 DVR fee. If you add MRV its an additional $3 fee, that's $20.00. Plus $6.00 for mirroring fees for extra receivers. What is not known is if DTV will charge in addition to those fees to use the HR-34.


While that true I already pay for HD and DVR. I plan to keep a minimum of 4 other HD DVR's on the account. I have no interest in MRV and I never intend to have a HD receiver but rather HD DVR's only. Why would I want to pay $10 for HD and $7 for DVR fee for my entire account and then turn around and pay another $20 for 1 stand alone box? If that pans out to be true it wont be worth it at all.


----------



## Jeremy W

Doug Brott said:


> The choice of GUI is made by choosing a different vendor (i.e. Comcast, DISH, etc.) over DIRECTV. That choice is about as existent as Allvid is these days.


Ah, got it. I just misunderstood your wording. Basically it comes down to you not minding being locked into a provider's GUI, while I don't like it. Now I understand where you're coming from.


----------



## Jeremy W

joshjr said:


> Why would I want to pay $10 for HD and $7 for DVR fee for my entire account and then turn around and pay another $20 for 1 stand alone box? If that pans out to be true it wont be worth it at all.


I can't imagine that being the case.


----------



## Doug Brott

joshjr said:


> While that true I already pay for HD and DVR. I plan to keep a minimum of 4 other HD DVR's on the account. I have no interest in MRV and I never intend to have a HD receiver but rather HD DVR's only. Why would I want to pay $10 for HD and $7 for DVR fee for my entire account and then turn around and pay another $20 for 1 stand alone box? If that pans out to be true it wont be worth it at all.


The interesting point (for me) is why the aversion to MRV? Having that seems (to me) that it would solve some of the issues you look to be resolving.


----------



## joshjr

Doug Brott said:


> The interesting point (for me) is why the aversion to MRV? Having that seems (to me) that it would solve some of the issues you look to be resolving.


Guess I just need educated on MRV more. I dont want all my DVR's linked. I want one in each room independently and the one I use downstairs needs 4 tuners. I would rather that be 4 tuners on one box instead of 2 tuners on 2 boxes.


----------



## Jeremy W

joshjr said:


> Guess I just need educated on MRV more. I dont want all my DVR's linked. I want one in each room independently and the one I use downstairs needs 4 tuners.


That's perfectly possible with MRV. You'd just link the two DVRs downstairs, and that's all. You don't have to link all of your DVRs.


----------



## Guest

joshjr said:


> While that true I already pay for HD and DVR. I plan to keep a minimum of 4 other HD DVR's on the account. I have no interest in MRV and I never intend to have a HD receiver but rather HD DVR's only. Why would I want to pay $10 for HD and $7 for DVR fee for my entire account and then turn around and pay another $20 for 1 stand alone box? If that pans out to be true it wont be worth it at all.


The cool thing for DTV to do with the HR34 is to just charge $17 to $20 per month period. No mirroring fees or tuner fees. I thought the whole point of getting rid of the set-top box is not to charge any type of extra set-top box fees, except for the main server. Unless its to just get rid of the clutter in media center set-up?


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> The cool thing for DTV to do with the HR34 is to just charge $17 per month period. No mirroring fees or tuner fees.


No, the cool thing to do would be to make it free.


----------



## Guest

Jeremy W said:


> No, the cool thing to do would be to make it free.


I doubt that will happen.


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> I doubt that will happen.


And I doubt the HR34 won't have any additional fees associated with it. At the *very* least, I'm sure they'll require WHDVR service.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> The cool thing for DTV to do with the HR34 is to just charge $17 to $20 per month period. No mirroring fees or tuner fees. I thought the whole point of getting rid of the set-top box is not to charge any type of extra set-top box fees, except for the main server. Unless its to just get rid of the clutter in media center set-up?


No, the whole point of the HMC is to reduce the client-side cost to zero (perfect world) by having the customer buy the client as part of the cost of a TV. DIRECTV will charge whatever they think people will pay. They are not a charity.


----------



## Guest

Jeremy W said:


> And I doubt the HR34 won't have any additional fees associated with it. At the *very* least, I'm sure they'll require WHDVR service.


It might still cost $199 to $299 right?


----------



## Jeremy W

CraigerCSM said:


> It might still cost $199 to $299 right?


It'll cost more than $199, unless they decide to lower the cost of the current HD DVRs.


----------



## harsh

Drucifer said:


> Price will always be the deciding factor for most consumers.


Price doesn't seem to get a lot of play in DIRECTV's retention toolbox. For that they seem to rely on heavy discounting on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## harsh

Jeremy W said:


> It'll cost more than $199, unless they decide to lower the cost of the current HD DVRs.


I'm betting that a four TV install will indeed be $199 for virgin customers.

That would make it about the same price as doing it the conventional way but gives the subscriber significantly better access to the recorded content of a single DVR versus the HR24 and three H25s that they would get today.


----------



## BattleScott

Jeremy W said:


> Except in this case, consumer choice is a huge issue instead of just a bunch of technical checkboxes that are usually the issues in format wars. RVU kills consumer choice, AllVid allows it to flourish.


True, but my point is that 2 camps are forming based on their interests in a "consumer choice" market. RVU camp wants it squashed, AllVid camp wants it opened up (finally). That was my basis for comparison to a "format-war", not any technology similarities between the 2 (like BR vs. HD-DVD or Beta vs. VHS).


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There's not even format "hand slapping" going on right now, let alone anything resembling a battle.
> 
> Yup....quite true.


If you don't think the attempt to get RVU passed as an alternative to AllVid is just that, you are not seeing the big picture.


----------



## BattleScott

Drucifer said:


> Price will always be the deciding factor for most consumers.


Unless they're not given a choice... well, technically I guess "High, Higher or Highest" is still a choice.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BattleScott said:


> If you don't think the attempt to get RVU passed as an alternative to AllVid is just that, you are not seeing the big picture.


The big picture is no such battle exists.


----------



## Jeremy W

harsh said:


> I'm betting that a four TV install will indeed be $199 for virgin customers.


I was referring to the normal cost for an existing customer to lease one.


----------



## Tom Robertson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The big picture is no such battle exists.


Not at the consumer level... yet.

And there really isn't any reason for the consumer to see this war. Yet don't be fooled, there is a battle going on.

Actually 2: Cablecard version 3 vs. set top makers and then AllVid vs. RVU.

The cable companies especially, including the set top makers, really don't want any standardized protocol--then they lose their cash cows.

So if they are going to lose that battle, some are pushing for RVU in the hopes they might lock up the GUI version of the same thing.

But I don't think the FCC is going to buy it. I expect the FCC will get their goal before this war is done. (Might take some skirmishes in the form of some rule tweaks.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> But I don't think the FCC is going to buy it.


I hope you're right. It's not worth going through all this trouble just to have RVU become the standard. AllVid will truly change the television landscape, while RVU is just a slightly less restrictive version of what we have today.

My ISP doesn't dictate what web browser I use, so why should my TV provider be able to dictate what IPG I use?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Tom Robertson said:


> Not at the consumer level... yet.
> 
> And there really isn't any reason for the consumer to see this war. Yet don't be fooled, there is a battle going on.
> 
> Actually 2: Cablecard version 3 vs. set top makers and then AllVid vs. RVU.


Tom...having also followed this for almost a year...

All I see is AllVid *lobbying* to get support - that might create a battle behinds the scenes between camps/supporters...but I still see nothing more than that, and certainly still nothing resembling a war.

Most important...as the clock ticks...manufacturers won't just sit around waiting...


----------



## Jeremy W

hdtvfan0001 said:


> All I see is AllVid *lobbying* to get support


AllVid is an FCC proposal. It already has the support of the FCC, which is all it really needs.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> Most important...as the clock ticks...manufacturers won't just sit around waiting...


Manufacturers will wait as long as they have to. If the FCC moves forward with AllVid, they won't have a choice when it comes to implementing it.


----------



## LameLefty

Jeremy W said:


> AllVid is an FCC proposal. It already has the support of the FCC, which is all it really needs.


Actually, that's kind of simplistic. Just because some FCC commissioners (or even all of them) are in favor of something doesn't mean Congress can't or won't trump those opinions by legislation. And as we all know, the entertainment industry has influence in Congress vastly disproportionate to the actual size of the industry compared to the overall economy, let alone the industry's import in the grand scheme of things.

In other words, if the industry wants something different than what the FCC says IT wants, Congress is likely to make the FCC do it.


----------



## Tom Robertson

LameLefty said:


> Actually, that's kind of simplistic. Just because some FCC commissioners (or even all of them) are in favor of something doesn't mean Congress can't or won't trump those opinions by legislation. And as we all know, the entertainment industry has influence in Congress vastly disproportionate to the actual size of the industry compared to the overall economy, let alone the its import in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> In other words, if the industry wants something different than what the FCC says IT wants, Congress is likely to make the FCC do it.


True but, the courts recently ruled that the FCC was given the task by the Congress and therefore is empowered to create these rules.

So, while some maneuvering and lobbying of Congress is always guaranteed, I don't foresee Congress doing anything but delaying the implementation date.

And at this point, since the FCC has seemingly delayed the specification significantly by dropping the ball(?), I could understand a reasonable delay. consumer equipment makers still need a nearly 18 month production cycle. That means the spec needs to be ready now for a Dec. 2012 implementation.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Could they do a single standard were every type of video provider could be attached to a Declination Point at the side of the house and that would contain a DVR that would handle SD and HD. Then the signal would be distributed throughout the house and then the customer would only need HDTV's, PC's, BluRay players and Game Consoles.


----------



## Doug Brott

What is a declination point?


----------



## Doug Brott

And I guess resistance is futile .. we're doomed to have this thread turn into an RVU v. Allvid thread. Sigh.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jeremy W said:


> AllVid is an FCC proposal. It already has the support of the FCC, which is all it really needs.


But lobbying (by FCC members - and not all of theim either) is all I read about....talk....but little action.

At this rate...


----------



## bobnielsen

Doug Brott said:


> What is a declination point?


Perhaps demarcation point was intended.


----------



## Guest

bobnielsen said:


> Perhaps demarcation point was intended.


Yeh that's what I meant sorry. I couldn't remember the name.


----------



## Doug Brott

Here's the big problem with Allvid and why I think it won't succeed in the end.


The big boys do not want their branding removed.
The average consumer just wants to watch TV, they don't care about fluff. A simple RVU client can be reused across vendors (this is the big point). Yeah, the UI may be different, but there is no "buy in" for switching vendors except for the main gateway (or server, whatever you want to call it).
People will not want to spend hundreds of dollars on a client box for each room just to have a cool UI. TiVo is the prime example, but how will TiVo make money? They have to get folks to either pony up up front or charge a extra fee. Everyone wants free .. how can TiVo provide "free" - the answer is, they can't since their only product is the STB. DIRECTV, DISH, Comcast at least can defray some of the initial costs of the STB through increased programming costs. TiVo (or other STB provider) cannot.

Allvid will best help the open source TV projects MythTV, etc. where dollars are not an issue. The consumer pays for the PC (again, hundreds of dollars) and has to manage the process themselves. Google TV is an option, but they'll have ads .. That is their business model. Is that consumer friendly?

Allvid is a great thought, but the competing interests of low cost to consumers and nice profits to vendors is going to ultimately make it a non-starter. Yeah, that is my opinion and I may be wrong, but I don't see it happening .. I see RVU or something similar being the route that proves successful. Why?


Big Company is leading the charge (DIRECTV notably on the MSO side), so we know already that they have bought in and won't be fighting the process tooth and nail.

Consumers can buy TVs or converter boxes that (while dumb) can be reused. It's a copy/paste from a development perspective, one size fits all. You're not designing a complete UI for every different client type, it's ALWAYS the same (other than cosmetics). This simplicity will mean the client will be a commodity .. If RVU is the one and it clicks, then more TV vendors will jump on board. The key will be getting more MSOs on board. Assuming that were to happen, no new box (except the gateway) for any TV location. Win for the consumer.

Yes, it is true that the UI will change, but THAT is what the MSOs want. How can they support many different interfaces .. Most of which they wouldn't have created?

When you call 1-800-DIRECTV and ask them why your TiVo-Allvid isn't working, what does DIRECTV say? Sorry, you have to call TiVo ... Customer asks, but I've got DIRECTV ... See where this is going?

Bottom line, Allvid sounds great, but it's Utopia. Folks, Utopia doesn't exist. RVU (or something very similar) will prove to give the customer choice by not locking them in to high entry costs if they want to switch. DIRECTV benefits by having less actual hardware on their books per customer (long term). It's not perfect, but it's something that has great benefit to both sides. Allvid makes an implicit assumption that there will be a multitude of STB companies .. I just don't see that.


----------



## Doug Brott

bobnielsen said:


> Perhaps demarcation point was intended.





CraigerCSM said:


> Yeh that's what I meant sorry. I couldn't remember the name.


Yes, I know .. Craiger, your question which I was responding to is basically what Allvid is all about. BUT .. each of those devices would have to have a UI capable of dealing with the "tuner" streams from the gateway at that demarcation point .. Oh, and don't get hung up on where that is located at your house. It just means a centralized location.


----------



## BattleScott

Tom Robertson said:


> Not at the consumer level... yet.
> 
> And there really isn't any reason for the consumer to see this war. Yet don't be fooled, there is a battle going on.
> 
> Actually 2: Cablecard version 3 vs. set top makers and then AllVid vs. RVU.
> 
> The cable companies especially, including the set top makers, really don't want any standardized protocol--then they lose their cash cows.
> 
> So if they are going to lose that battle, some are pushing for RVU in the hopes they might lock up the GUI version of the same thing.
> 
> But I don't think the FCC is going to buy it. I expect the FCC will get their goal before this war is done. (Might take some skirmishes in the form of some rule tweaks.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Exactly the point I was trying to communicate, I just don't have the writing skills! And I certainly hope you're right about the FCC, but I am more pessimistic, I think political influence and corruption will again rule the day.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Doug, and other "AllVid will fail" believers,

Who do you call when something happens on your broadband network?
Who do you call when your landline phone doesn't work?
Who did you call when your generic VCR/TV hooked to cable didn't work?

These examples are all the same model: a service provider giving standardized service to your home so that generic, standardized components can make the service work.

Until the FCC and courts standardized the phone system, every phone was big, black Bakelite, rotary, heavy, and boring. Now look at the innovation in the home phone market.

Think about how many different network options you can put into your home because of standardized service. Not just switches and routers, a whole range of coolstuff including network printers, wireless, wireless devices, DVRs!, TVs, refrigerators even! 

How many VCR makers did there use to be? What stopped them from making DVRs? 

This model is not something to be feared. Sure there will be people calling the electric company to complain about their TV being out--we have that now. But everyone can figure out how to make the model work. And really smart people will make it not only work, but springboard them into really cool stuff for us, the consumer.

Think about what is being "protected". At the end of the day there are three categories: basic video, advanced video products and features, and features that are part of the video equipment and not the video service.

Basic video doesn't need a fancy UI. Anyone could operate a VCR (or find a 6 year old to operate it for them.) Sure lots of blinking 12:00am clocks, which lead to smarter VCRs that set their own time. 

in fact, the new model would allow AllVid TVs to be simpler to operate again. Just tune to a channel. Skip the garbage of turn on the STB, switch the remote to operate the TV, put the TV on the right input, switch remote to STB again, change channel, yada confusa. I had basic, basic cable for exactly 2 reasons: it was only a buck with Internet and for my mother in law who could just barely handle on/off and channel up. Forget being able to handle a STB.

Yes, this is a HUGE change in how things have operated recently. But experience has shown this type of change can be very lucrative to thems who take advantage of it. And not so good for thems who hide in the sand.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

If I had an HR34...based on *all those questions*....I'd call ghostbusters.


----------



## Doug Brott

Tom, I hear what you're saying .. I just don't see where there is any demand. People get a "free" DVR from Joe Provider and call it a TiVo. I don't see enough people caring for it to be profitable.

At least with phones, there was essentially one way in to the house tip & ring (a wire) .. the new phones could tap into that.

With Allvid, the MSO has to provide a piece of hardware (not free) and then the STB provider (MSO, TiVo, whoever) also has to provide a piece of hardware (also not free).

I just see economics winning this battle and while choice may be good. Allvid will be more expensive in the long run.


----------



## Laxguy

Jeremy W said:


> My ISP doesn't dictate what web browser I use, so why should my TV provider be able to dictate what IPG I use?


Had to smile at the browser reference: At one point, PacBell (née ATT; then SBC Global; now ATT once again), in the Bay Area at least, said they'd offer support only for Netscape. [Then a suite of programs including a browser].

They also steered folk to usenet for peer-to-peer support. (!) Naturally, they dropped all support for News Groups years ago, and Netscape is but a fond memory.

~ former "Netscape Champion"


----------



## Tom Robertson

Doug Brott said:


> Tom, I hear what you're saying .. I just don't see where there is any demand. People get a "free" DVR from Joe Provider and call it a TiVo. I don't see enough people caring for it to be profitable.
> 
> At least with phones, there was essentially one way in to the house tip & ring (a wire) .. the new phones could tap into that.
> 
> With Allvid, the MSO has to provide a piece of hardware (not free) and then the STB provider (MSO, TiVo, whoever) also has to provide a piece of hardware (also not free).
> 
> I just see economics winning this battle and while choice may be good. Allvid will be more expensive in the long run.


Used to be the provider gave you a service and charged you for each phone. That is gone, gone, gone. Now we have better phones with more features that don't cost much. I've even had free phones as lost leaders from Office/Staples/Max/Depot.

And wait just one second. Does Comcast provide the internet gateway device now? Heck no, you either rent (at obscene prices) or buy your own. What makes you think MSOs will be required to hand out gateways. You know they will charge for them. And for installation. Or let you buy one at bestbuy. (Yeah, DIRECTV is at a slight disadvantage in that their gateway will be unique whereas Comcast, TimeWarner, Cox, etc. will all use the exact same gateways.)

Why do you think MSOs will be giving away STBs? They will rent them and given other examples in real life, rent them at prices that will pay for them in 2 to 5 months. Heck, MSOs used to rent the remote controls!

Nah, in reality people will go to the former VCR store, Walmart, Sears, Bestbuy, Target, Kmart, etc. and buy a STB for $20. No rental fees. DVRs will be $30. (Ok, for the really crappy ones, but you will see them.)

At christmas, your larger grocery stores will even have DVRs someday. None of this lease for $200 and buy for $450 stuff. If you want a Denon DVR, you'll spend the money for a top of the line model. (Which you can't do now; why is that?) If you like Samsung's DVR/BD/Game combo, you will be able to get that.

The MSOs will lobby for "but we need that control!" Yeah, right. They want to control the money.
They will lobby "we need that ability to support". Yeah, right. Internet providers, phone providers, computer providers don't need that. Sure--they would like that very much as it does reduce their support costs. But not enough to offset the huge gains the average customer will see.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

See Tom, that's the Utopia I was trying to describe. I don't see it happening, and yeah, I may be wrong, but I don't see it.

The more likely scenario that I see is exactly the browser model discussed above .. Streaming over the Internet. I see that catching on (with a single point of entry for anyone devising a smart client box) long before I see a gateway box from DIRECTV/Comcast, etc.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Doug Brott said:


> See Tom, that's the Utopia I was trying to describe. I don't see it happening, and yeah, I may be wrong, but I don't see it.
> 
> The more likely scenario that I see is exactly the browser model discussed above .. Streaming over the Internet. I see that catching on (with a single point of entry for anyone devising a smart client box) long before I see a gateway box from DIRECTV/Comcast, etc.


In your view, what gets in the way of this happening? (Aside from the FCC screwing it up.)


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> The MSOs will lobby for "but we need that control!" Yeah, right. They want to control the money.
> They will lobby "we need that ability to support". Yeah, right. Internet providers, phone providers, computer providers don't need that. Sure--they would like that very much as it does reduce their support costs. But not enough to offset the huge gains the average customer will see.


Summed up perfectly! The excuses on why AllVid is bad are all flimsy. The TV providers are simply refusing to fall in line with every other type of service provider out there. I'm not usually one to ask for government intervention, but that's the only way things will get done in this case.

History is on AllVid's side.


----------



## Jeremy W

Doug Brott said:


> See Tom, that's the Utopia I was trying to describe. I don't see it happening, and yeah, I may be wrong, but I don't see it.


*Every* other service operates this way. I don't see why TV should be any different.


----------



## dsw2112

Doug Brott said:


> Tom, I hear what you're saying .. I just don't see where there is any demand. People get a "free" DVR from Joe Provider and call it a TiVo. I don't see enough people caring for it to be profitable.
> 
> At least with phones, there was essentially one way in to the house tip & ring (a wire) .. the new phones could tap into that.
> 
> With Allvid, the MSO has to provide a piece of hardware (not free) and then the STB provider (MSO, TiVo, whoever) also has to provide a piece of hardware (also not free).
> 
> I just see economics winning this battle and while choice may be good. Allvid will be more expensive in the long run.


To be fair, it's a bit of a fallacy to argue that the current model provides a free DVR, but say the Allvid model would require a gateway that will have a cost associated. The provider would have the same opportunity to "provide" a gateway as part of their installation, as they did a DVR. I'm not saying that's what will happen, but it's not really fair to argue the point the way it was stated.

I do believe that STB prices would fall dramatically in an open market system (as Tom stated.) So while they may not be free, they will have a price point much lower than what we see now. I think competition in the STB realm will help innovate, and reduce cost.

BTW -- how'd this thread get sidetracked into discussing allvid :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott

Jeremy W said:


> Summed up perfectly! The excuses on why AllVid is bad are all flimsy. The TV providers are simply refusing to fall in line with every other type of service provider out there. I'm not usually one to ask for government intervention, but that's the only way things will get done in this case.
> 
> History is on AllVid's side.


Hope you're not saying I said Allvid is bad. I don't know that it is. I just don't think it will work in the real world. By the time the Government puts this together and rams it down the MSOs throats TV as we know it will have already changed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> Hope you're not saying I said Allvid is bad. I don't know that it is. I just don't think it will work in the real world. By the time the Government puts this together and rams it down the MSOs throats TV as we know it will have already changed.


Agreed.

I also suspect the industry itself has a more sound approach (not to mention can execute it much quicker) than anyone in Wash DC.

In the mean time, the HR34 sits and waits I suppose....with consumers outta luck.


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I also suspect the industry itself has a more sound approach (not to mention can execute it much quicker) than anyone in Wash DC.
> 
> In the mean time, the HR34 sits and waits I suppose....with consumers outta luck.


Yeah, no one moves faster and innovates quicker than the PayTV industry!!! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Guest

Doesn't ATT have a type of AllVid already? They have their own Gateway that you hook their STB's into. They even allow the XBOX 360 to be an ATT STB.


----------



## Herdfan

Doug Brott said:


> [*]People will not want to spend hundreds of dollars on a client box for each room just to have a cool UI.


I agree, but people also don't want to have to pay $10-12/mo to get HD in the bedroom. As satellite subs, we are accustomed to having a "fee" on each additional location. A cable customer who was getting analog cable in the bedroom, but now has to pay a fee each month will not be happy.

Enter a $199-299 box that he can own and will let him have HD in the bedroom. Less than a 2-3 year payback, he can take it with him when he moves and if he wants, a cool UI.


----------



## Guest

In a RVU system people would have to spend money on a client box also if they wanted to just have a PC, BluRay Player or Game System with RVU built in hooked to a TV without the HR-34.


----------



## BattleScott

CraigerCSM said:


> Doesn't ATT have a type of AllVid already? They have their own Gateway that you hook their STB's into. They even allow the XBOX 360 to be an ATT STB.


Kind of, but like RVU it falls well short of the goals of the AllVid proposal.

If the gateway were an open technology allowing ANY box, or even the TV itself, to be a STB AND have the control over GUI elements and STB functionality, then it would be AllVid.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

CraigerCSM said:


> Doesn't ATT have a type of AllVid already? They have their own Gateway that you hook their STB's into. They even allow the XBOX 360 to be an ATT STB.


not the same and I think you pay the same the rent fee as with a ATT box I think about $7.

+ $99 hardware kit + $55 tech install + Xbox Live.

the rent is a joke when you buy the Bell Fibe TV HD main box for $500 or rent for $20 and other boxes at each tv for $200 or rent for $5.

telus is $15/mo rent or $250 to buy the main box and the box at each tv for $150.00 or rent for $5.

xbox kit costs $50 on telus.

Free installation applies to the first 2 digital boxes. Additional boxes installed will be subject to a $50 charge per box.

I just want to move to the Canada system for hardware the where you can rent or buy with no mirroring costs.

HD DRV SAT costs seem to be $399.99 - $499.00 and HD box are $99.99 - $199.00 and both systems give you a Credit on the first box.

Now on cable it's all over the place makeing it hard to find the real cost (removing the locked to that system can end up lowing the price) and some systems have rent to own.

shaw
HD boxes are like $178 or $5 rent to own HD ready DVR (needs E-sata disk) $198 HD DVR with 1TB E-sata $298 or HD DVR 500GB $348 or $10 rent to own.

SHAW GATEWAY (6 tuners) (500gb + E-sata) & TOTAL HOME PORTAL $598.00 or $17 rent to own
and add more TOTAL HOME PORTALs for $178.00 or $5 rent to own each.

rogers 
HD $319.99 or 12.95 rent HD DRV (160GB) $24.95 rent or $499 320GB $549 500gb $599

cogeco
HD box $199.99 or $10 rent HD DVR $499.99 or $18 rent


----------



## Tom Robertson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I also suspect the industry itself has a more sound approach (not to mention can execute it much quicker) than anyone in Wash DC.
> 
> In the mean time, the HR34 sits and waits I suppose....with consumers outta luck.


Industry has a more sound approach which is called very expensive set top boxes, high rental and lease fees, and very closed architectures. Yup, it is sound for them. Very expensive for us.

There is no motivation for the industry to compete on the set top box level, just as there was no reason for AT&T to compete on the handset level in the phone industry back in 1984.

Um... the HR34 ain't sitting. You didn't notice it is in trials? 

For awhile, MSOs will have their house brand equipment. Things won't flip overnight. 100M customers won't change from business as old to business as AllVid immediately.  But eventually MSOs will make their money on service--semi-monopoly services in the case of cable.

And DVR (RVU server) companies will make their money on innovative hardware and innovative manufacturing.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Tom Robertson said:


> *Industry has a more sound approach which is called very expensive set top boxes*, high rental and lease fees, and very closed architectures. Yup, it is sound for them. Very expensive for us.


I bet a government-imposed technology will cost more. It almost always does.



> Um... the HR34 ain't sitting. You didn't notice it is in trials?


It also noticed it isn't released...


----------



## Tom Robertson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I bet a government-imposed technology will cost more. It almost always does.
> 
> It also noticed it isn't released...


Standardizing TV to NTSC and then ATSC was more expensive? Seems like by having standards you didn't have the Chicago TV system, the LA TV system, CBS method, etc. What we have here is a standardization to communicate.

Standardizing to a single phone technology to and in the home didn't raise rates, equipment costs fell thru the floor. Competition dropped the prices of the services too. When was the last time you paid $1 per minute in long distance within the US... 

Having a standardized video standard will do the same thing.

The key difference is the government is requiring a standard, not manufacturing the technology itself.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Well, it has been a year since the NoI (released April 21, 2010) and the FCC hasn't pushed the process any further. There is still a steady drip of filings at the FCC site from the concerned parties but no indication of when or if the FCC is going to move forward. 

The AllVid Tech Company Alliance has been quiet since its inception with only one filing since their original announcement.

With no movement towards a NPR I don't see any way this can be pushed out before the end of 2012 as was originally proposed. There will be too much hardware and software development work required before gateway devices will be ready for deployment.

I suspect they won't want the HR34 to wait another year+.


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> In a RVU system people would have to spend money on a client box also if they wanted to just have a PC, BluRay Player or Game System with RVU built in hooked to a TV without the HR-34.


Nope. The RVU client would be built into the TV, the PC, Bluray player, the game system, and the surround system. Since it's mostly software, the PC, bluray player, and the game system can be hooked up without even an upgrade to newer hardware.

Look at the home networking industry. Sure, early on, you had to buy a network interface card for each device. But now TVs have them built in. AVRs have them. Smart phones can connect to your network. No one has to spend lots of money per device.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

Tom Robertson said:


> There is no motivation for the industry to compete on the set top box level, just as there was no reason for AT&T to compete on the handset level in the phone industry back in 1984


I agree with this .. if Allvid does take over, it becomes much less important for DIRECTV to have their own branded experience .. which leads to what? A decrease in DIRECTV's involvement in the middleware arena. I suppose they could build their own middleware which would (in theory) work on any platform, but a DIRECTV STB controlling a DISH Network or Comcast distribution just seems, well, highly unlikely.

And having worked in a job that gave me access to the world of telecommunications over the years .. It really sucks when one vendor says "it's the other guy" and the other guy says the same thing. This is undoubtedly what will happen especially in the situation where crappy $25 DVR doesn't perform in a conducive way. Customer will still call DIRECTV (or Comcast, or DISH) because that is who they have service with. crappy DVR company will end up having crappy support and customer will long for the day where they could just watch TV and be happy.

Yeah, Market forces will help weed out the good from the bad on both sides, but what will the end result really be? Will it be a happier consumer when you look at the big picture or will it be something else?

If the FCC can't find a way to get the MSOs to buy in to Allvid .. it's doomed to failure. RVU is a convenient step back and will provide an incredibly large amount of Allvid's goals. Couple that with the fact that it is already in the roll out stage (Samsung, soon DIRECTV, etc.) Allvid hasn't gone much past conception yet.


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> Nope. The RVU client would be built into the TV, the PC, Bluray player, the game system, and the surround system. Since it's mostly software, the PC, bluray player, and the game system can be hooked up without even an upgrade to newer hardware.
> 
> Look at the home networking industry. Sure, early on, you had to buy a network interface card for each device. But now TVs have them built in. AVRs have them. Smart phones can connect to your network. No one has to spend lots of money per device.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I know RVU would be built into PC's, BluRay and game systems. I read that RVU would be a chip not software. Is RVU software only is it mainly DNLA?


----------



## Steve

Tom Robertson said:


> Standardizing to a single phone technology to and in the home didn't raise rates, equipment costs fell thru the floor.
> 
> [...] the government is requiring a [TV] standard, not manufacturing the technology itself.


Bingo, and a great analogy of what the FCC is hoping to achieve here, IMO. With average monthly TV subsriber programming costs approaching (or exceeding) $100, the MSO's would be wise to agree on standards sooner rather than later, to create economies of scale.


----------



## Tom Robertson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Well, it has been a year since the NoI (released April 21, 2010) and the FCC hasn't pushed the process any further. There is still a steady drip of filings at the FCC site from the concerned parties but no indication of when or if the FCC is going to move forward.
> 
> The AllVid Tech Company Alliance has been quiet since its inception with only one filing since their original announcement.
> 
> With no movement towards a NPR I don't see any way this can be pushed out before the end of 2012 as was originally proposed. There will be too much hardware and software development work required before gateway devices will be ready for deployment.
> 
> I suspect they won't want the HR34 to wait another year+.


HR34 is not AllVid. The HR34 is not a gateway. In fact, the HR34 is mostly the complete opposite of AllVid as it is not a gateway. DIRECTV can't wait for AllVid to develop their gateway devices. 

Now, I am concerned about the quiet about Allvid by the FCC. They need to act now for the reasons you mention. The 18 months it takes for consumer electronics manufacturers to spin up new equipment.

That said, what does that have to do with the vision being more expensive than what we got now?  To me the vision is very sound. Government is just being slow in getting the vision going.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> HR34 is not AllVid. The HR34 is not a gateway. In fact, the HR34 is mostly the complete opposite of AllVid as it is not a gateway. DIRECTV can't wait for AllVid to develop their gateway devices.
> 
> Now, I am concerned about the quiet about Allvid by the FCC. They need to act now for the reasons you mention. The 18 months it takes for consumer electronics manufacturers to spin up new equipment.
> 
> That said, what does that have to do with the vision being more expensive than what we got now?  To me the vision is very sound. Government is just being slow in getting the vision going.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I think DTV should have made the HR-34 a wifi gateway unless that would make it IPTV? With adding Wifi that would be an easy way to hookup DTV's VOD.


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> I know RVU would be built into PC's, BluRay and game systems. I read that RVU would be a chip not software. Is RVU software only is it mainly DNLA?


Perhaps I misunderstood your post?

RVU requires generic hardware to work: CPU, networking, and video. Since PCs, Blu-rays, and game systems often have all the above they only need the software part. Easily added.

TVs generally need all the hardware--which many new TVs have. The question is will TVs have enough CPU and GPU horsepower to decode the RVU signals correctly? Some will, some won't this year, but I expect they will next year. (Or the year after.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

> That said, what does that have to do with the vision being more expensive than what we got now?  To me the vision is very sound. Government is just being slow in getting the vision going.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Time is money they say...


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood your post?
> 
> RVU requires generic hardware to work: CPU, networking, and video. Since PCs, Blu-rays, and game systems often have all the above they only need the software part. Easily added.
> 
> TVs generally need all the hardware--which many new TVs have. The question is will TVs have enough CPU and GPU horsepower to decode the RVU signals correctly? Some will, some won't this year, but I expect they will next year. (Or the year after.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Sorry sometimes I have trouble wording posts right. I guess I am still confused how RVU clients will hook up to the HR-34. Wont all RVU Clients need both a coaxial and a ethernet port?


----------



## Guest

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Time is money they say...


Sounds to me like AllVId is Government and RVU is Industry.


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> I think DTV should have made the HR-34 a wifi gateway unless that would make it IPTV? With adding Wifi that would be an easy way to hookup DTV's VOD.


Wifi video and IPTV video aren't standardized yet. That is what AllVid is trying to do on the IPTV side.

The HR34 will be a great addition to DIRECTVs hardware lineup while the FCC figures out the plan for Allvid. They can use it to reduce their costs and speed up installations.

Then when AllVid is finalized, perhaps the HR34 will have a role in that environment too. For instance you might have a basic gateway offering from DIRECTV and the premium gateway that has the DVR builtin.

Then over time we'll see how the industry defines itself within the new standard.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

I'd agree that the physical look of an Allvid gateway from DIRECTV would not be significantly different than an HR34 (or HR24 for that matter). The big difference is that it would have a sat-in port and a network out port (Ethernet, MoCA, WiFi, whatever works) and that would be it. There probably would be no need for storage at that point although I could see DIRECTV adding storage for the sole purpose of pre-downloaded PPV content.


----------



## Shades228

If Allvid does go through I would hope that companies would have the ability to approve or disapprove a device for their service. I would rather pay more and have 1 company be required to support it than have a back and forth game.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Doug Brott said:


> I'd agree that the physical look of an Allvid gateway from DIRECTV would not be significantly different than an HR34 (or HR24 for that matter). The big difference is that it would have a sat-in port and a network out port (Ethernet, MoCA, WiFi, whatever works) and that would be it. There probably would be no need for storage at that point although I could see DIRECTV adding storage for the sole purpose of pre-downloaded PPV content.


Bingo! 

The first internet gateways were pretty dumb cable modems. Now they have wifi built in. Some have plugs for NAS or other features.

The gateways likely won't be very feature rich but they will develop features that make sense for the gateways over time.

And, now the fanboi plug. I'm very confident that DIRECTV will be able to innovate in the new environment AllVid will present. They will figure out what makes sense in the gateways and what doesn't. And how to improve their service offerings in the AllVid environment.

Some of the things DIRECTV does now are still awesome under AllVid: mix channels for instance. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

Tom Robertson said:


> Some of the things DIRECTV does now are still awesome under AllVid: mix channels for instance.


Why not be more specific .. Assuming a competent network the gateway method could provide for a personalized mix channel. No need to wait for provider specific ones. Of course you'd need each tuner to feed from the proper channel and (to help on network bandwidth) perhaps scale it to "mix" size and let the the client place that "mix" channel in the proper position on the screen.

Can't do that with the RVU or "per room" setups now in use.


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> Bingo!
> 
> The first internet gateways were pretty dumb cable modems. Now they have wifi built in. Some have plugs for NAS or other features.
> 
> The gateways likely won't be very feature rich but they will develop features that make sense for the gateways over time.
> 
> And, now the fanboi plug. I'm very confident that DIRECTV will be able to innovate in the new environment AllVid will present. They will figure out what makes sense in the gateways and what doesn't. And how to improve their service offerings in the AllVid environment.
> 
> Some of the things DIRECTV does now are still awesome under AllVid: mix channels for instance.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I am still waiting for the web browser to be built in.  I know now why that hasn't happened because the current processors in the HD DVR's can't handle it. I have read that those are expected to increase with the new types of chips on the market like the Tegra and Arm chipsets. They say those might end up in STB's.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Shades228 said:


> If Allvid does go through I would hope that companies would have the ability to approve or disapprove a device for their service. I would rather pay more and have 1 company be required to support it than have a back and forth game.


Do you need Comcast approval to hook a PC into the internet they provide? 

Now, I do understand some of what you are saying and I don't really mean to diminish it too much. DIRECTV has some features that might not translate into a truly generic model very well. That is the RVU-like part of AllVid.

And not every gateway will be identical. DIRECTV will very likely innovate some really cool stuff into their gateways. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

Doug Brott said:


> Why not be more specific .. Assuming a competent network the gateway method could provide for a personalized mix channel. No need to wait for provider specific ones. Of course you'd need each tuner to feed from the proper channel and (to help on network bandwidth) perhaps scale it to "mix" size and let the the client place that "mix" channel in the proper position on the screen.
> 
> Can't do that with the RVU or "per room" setups now in use.


I suspect gateways won't be able to do 8 window PIP. Heck, I don't expect most any home equipment will be able to do 8 window PIP for awhile. That is a LOT of video decoding (8 MPEG4 streams). 

I have wanted one of those devices that control centers use to make flexible PIP arrangements. Then I realized that 4 receivers and several computer monitors does exactly what I want and is much less costly. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

The top problem I read about re: AllVid is it's failure to properly assure copyright protection. That's likely a showstopper item.

That would explain why Hollywood is totally opposed to it.


----------



## Tom Robertson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The top problem I read about re: AllVid is it's failure to properly assure copyright protection. That's likely a showstopper item.


It is built in via DTCP-IP. What is missing?

And I wouldn't mind reading the commentary if you have the link.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Tom Robertson said:


> It is built in via DTCP-IP. What is missing?
> 
> And I wouldn't mind reading the commentary if you have the link.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom


Just read it on WIKI 10 minutes ago...


----------



## Tom Robertson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Just read it on WIKI 10 minutes ago...


Did you read it or write it...  (Just kidding, about the weaknesses of wiki.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Groundhog45

So.... how are those HR34 trials coming along? Any time line that can be revealed?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Tom Robertson said:


> Did you read it or write it...  (Just kidding, about the weaknesses of wiki.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


:lol:

That part has been there at least since January when I first read it...it includes a link with more detail on that item.


----------



## Doug Brott

Groundhog45 said:


> So.... how are those HR34 trials coming along? Any time line that can be revealed?


The HR34 will be available in either 2011 or 2012 assuming nothing strange happens (like the end of the world for example).


----------



## Guest

The main question will be how soon before RVU clients like more HDTV's, PC's BluRay Player and Game Systems start showing up in mass quantities? I know the only RVU HDTV out now is the Samsung's HDTV with RVU. Also their are rumors the PS4 is starting production at the end of this year and might be released sometime in 2012. I wonder if the PS4 will have RVU built in?


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> The main question will be how soon before RVU clients like more HDTV's, PC's BluRay Player and Game Systems start showing up in mass quantities? I know the only RVU HDTV out now is the Samsung's HDTV with RVU. Also their are rumors the PS4 is starting production at the end of this year and might be released sometime in 2012. I wonder if the PS4 will have RVU built in?


The PS3 can do RVU--when someone writes the app. 

RVU's future hinges on what happens to AllVid. If AllVid picks RVU, then I expect you'll see an explosion of RVU devices.

If Allvid stalls, RVU might pickup.

If Allvid goes somewhere else, RVU will morph into the something else (I bet.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> The PS3 can do RVU--when someone writes the app.
> 
> RVU's future hinges on what happens to AllVid. If AllVid picks RVU, then I expect you'll see an explosion of RVU devices.
> 
> If Allvid stalls, RVU might pickup.
> 
> If Allvid goes somewhere else, RVU will morph into the something else (I bet.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


So RVU is software and not a chip? In this article it says Broadcom is going to make the RVU chips.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2351176,00.asp


----------



## Tom Robertson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> :lol:
> 
> That part has been there at least since January when I first read it...it includes a link with more detail on that item.


I went to both the ars techna article and the original filing with the FCC. It seems the MPAA has some concerns about DTCP-IP's ability to protect certain types of information. And I think, in my quick peek at the article, I can agree with the MPAA's overall concerns about the content protection. (I'm not sure I agree with all their other points...yet.) 

That is what the FCC was asking for in the NOI, feedback on particulars. It very well might be that AllVid will not use DTCP-IP but something better. 

That still doesn't change the vision. Only the details. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> So RVU is software and not a chip? In this article it says Broadcom is going to make the RVU chips.
> 
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2351176,00.asp


That is a two year old article. RVU is not a chip. RVU a specification for transmitting video and user interface data.

Hardware is necessary to network, to decode the video and user interface streams, and to assemble those streams into a finalized video display. But it is not a unique "chip". Any sufficiently powerful CPU, GPU, and network card will do the job. And the PS3 has way more than enough horsepower to make it work. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> That is a two year old article. RVU is not a chip. RVU a specification for transmitting video and user interface data.
> 
> Hardware is necessary to network, to decode the video and user interface streams, and to assemble those streams into a finalized video display. But it is not a unique "chip". Any sufficiently powerful CPU, GPU, and network card will do the job. And the PS3 has way more than enough horsepower to make it work.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I guess I am still wondering how RVU Clients that wont have a coaxial input would hook into the HR-34 network?


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> I guess I am still wondering how RVU Clients that wont have a coaxial input would hook into the HR-34 network?


It is just a TCP/IP network. Those devices that don't connect directly to the MoCA net will connect via the bridge into the ethernet net. Or put a MoCA adapter directly on the client.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> It is just a TCP/IP network. Those devices that don't connect directly to the MoCA net will connect via the bridge into the ethernet net. Or put a MoCA adapter directly on the client.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Is this what you would have to have? Would RVU HDTV's, PC's have those built in? I know the Playstation and BluRay's probably wouldn't have them built in.

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/06/25/netgear-moca-coax-ethernet-adapter-review/

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=193851


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> Is this what you would have to have? Would RVU HDTV's, PC's have those built in? I know the Playstation and BluRay's probably wouldn't have them built in.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=193851


The first device is also 2 years old. Very outdated these days. It likely doesn't do the MoCA 1.2 frequencies also known as DECA.

I only use wireless for laptops and smartphones, not heavy duty video (or data) streaming. So I'd use: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170910 or http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2562556#post2562556 (Which already has the power supply.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

I finally figured out how RVU works with this diagram. Would DTV ever make an RVU server with Wifi built in? RVU is looking really cool now.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hJs2OpOhfh0/TTAaRBXukGI/AAAAAAAAACo/jPcT92q5MzM/s1600/directvrvu.jpg


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> I finally figured out how RVU works with this diagram. Would DTV ever make an RVU server with Wifi built in?


They could, but probably not. A client would be a much more likely WiFi candidate. The bandwidth for a server over WiFi could be an issue.


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> They could, but probably not. A client would be a much more likely WiFi candidate. The bandwidth for a server over WiFi could be an issue.


One other thing I thought of was what if the Wifi part of the RVU server goes down.

Also Tom keeps talking about an RVU app. RVU clients would have to have the RVU App built in right? I wonder if an eaiser thing would be for DTV to make the RVU App available on DVD so when a DTV customer signs up for the RVU service they get the RVU DVD software so you could install it on RVU devices that had DVD/BluRay drives?

Otherwise I wonder how long of a wait it would be before, HDTV's PC's BluRay Player and Game Consoles start coming with the DTV RVU App?

Also would the PQ degrade distributing it over Wifi?


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> One other thing I thought of was what if the Wifi part of the RVU server goes down.
> 
> Also Tom keeps talking about an RVU app. RVU clients would have to have the RVU App built in right? I wonder if an eaiser thing would be for DTV to make the RVU App available on DVD so when a DTV customer signs up for the RVU service they get the RVU DVD software so you could install it on RVU devices that had DVD/BluRay drives?
> 
> Otherwise I wonder how long of a wait it would be before, HDTV's PC's BluRay Player and Game Consoles start coming with the DTV RVU App?
> 
> Also would the PQ degrade distributing it over Wifi?


For PCs, RVU could be like any other software program and thus distributed via CD, DVD, internet, USB drive, etc.

But all those other devices need programs written for their own hardware (CPU, Graphics unit, etc.) You don't just distribute a single app that works on PCs, Macs, TVs, blue ray players, etc.

So Sony will have to write the software for the PS3, Microsoft for the Xbox, etc.

Besides, I don't think DIRECTV is interested in writing software for everyone else. This is not DIRECTV's specification, this is an industry specification of which DIRECTV is a founding member.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> For PCs, RVU could be like any other software program and thus distributed via CD, DVD, internet, USB drive, etc.
> 
> But all those other devices need programs written for their own hardware (CPU, Graphics unit, etc.) You don't just distribute a single app that works on PCs, Macs, TVs, blue ray players, etc.
> 
> So Sony will have to write the software for the PS3, Microsoft for the Xbox, etc.
> 
> Besides, I don't think DIRECTV is interested in writing software for everyone else. This is not DIRECTV's specification, this is an industry specification of which DIRECTV is a founding member.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


On a PC would you use Microsoft's TV Guide in their Media Center Software to view DTV's channels?


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> On a PC would you use Microsoft's TV Guide in their Media Center Software to view DTV's channels?


Yes--for a PC based DVR.

But we're talking about RVU here where the client has very little smarts. The client just displays what the server tells it to and doesn't need guide, tuners, disk drives, or pizza cutters. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Also Tom keeps talking about an RVU app. RVU clients would have to have the RVU App built in right? I wonder if an eaiser thing would be for DTV to make the RVU App available on DVD so when a DTV customer signs up for the RVU service they get the RVU DVD software so you could install it on RVU devices that had DVD/BluRay drives?


How do you make this stuff up? :scratchin

RVU is a "open" specification .. companies have to pay money to get the actual specification, though. There is a governing body that qualifies (or disqualifies) interoperability. It would be incumbent upon the BluRay manufacturer, the game console manufacturer or software maker to make it work. DIRECTV makes sure their server talks/listens proper RVU speak and the other vendors would have to write their on app (e.g. software or firmware) to talk/listen RVU speak on the client side.

Thing of RVU as a language like English, French, Spanish .. There are rules on what to say and when to say it. In the real world we speak to each other and our sound travels through the air from mouth to ear. In the RVU client/server world, the client and server talk to each other (using the RVU language) over your home network. That home network can consist of many different elements, but it's still your home network.

The bottom line is that whoever makes the device or software (Sony, Apple, DELL, Magnavox, DIRECTV, etc.) will have to teach their own box the right language (RVU speak) and they will need to make sure that that device can physically connect to your home network (WiFi, Ethernet, MoCA, DECA, etc.).


----------



## Guest

Doug Brott said:


> How do you make this stuff up? :scratchin
> 
> RVU is a "open" specification .. companies have to pay money to get the actual specification, though. There is a governing body that qualifies (or disqualifies) interoperability. It would be incumbent upon the BluRay manufacturer, the game console manufacturer or software maker to make it work. DIRECTV makes sure their server talks/listens proper RVU speak and the other vendors would have to write their on app (e.g. software or firmware) to talk/listen RVU speak on the client side.
> 
> Thing of RVU as a language like English, French, Spanish .. There are rules on what to say and when to say it. In the real world we speak to each other and our sound travels through the air from mouth to ear. In the RVU client/server world, the client and server talk to each other (using the RVU language) over your home network. That home network can consist of many different elements, but it's still your home network.
> 
> The bottom line is that whoever makes the device or software (Sony, Apple, DELL, Magnavox, DIRECTV, etc.) will have to teach their own box the right language (RVU speak) and they will need to make sure that that device can physically connect to your home network (WiFi, Ethernet, MoCA, DECA, etc.).


So RVU is like when some HDTV's say they are cable card compatible?


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> So RVU is like when some HDTV's say they are cable card compatible?


It could be, yes.


----------



## ndole

Jeremy W said:


> *Every* other service operates this way. I don't see why TV should be any different.


Except for all of the reasons Doug listed above.

To be completely honest.. it's none of the governments damned business how I get Directv.


----------



## Guest

How is SD and HD PQ over wifi?


----------



## Tom Robertson

ndole_mbnd said:


> Except for all of the reasons Doug listed above.
> 
> To be completely honest.. it's none of the governments damned business how I get Directv.


Umm... actually it is. Many times over. FCC controls the radio frequencies, connection standards, what TV ratings are and mean, what channels DIRECTV can redistribute and where, etc.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> How is SD and HD PQ over wifi?


Like all things relating to PQ, it depends on the source, the bandwidth, the receiver's ability to handle the bandwidth, etc.

I do not recommend WiFi for full HD streams unless you got nothing else using the network.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> Like all things relating to PQ, it depends on the source, the bandwidth, the receiver's ability to handle the bandwidth, etc.
> 
> I do not recommend WiFi for full HD streams unless you got nothing else using the network.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Does this allow you to do SD and HD over both wifi or coax?

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=193851


----------



## Tom Robertson

CraigerCSM said:


> Does this allow you to do SD and HD over both wifi or coax?
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=193851


It is a bridge between a coax network and an ethernet network using wireless. So if you can't get the coax network close enough for the DECA broadband to connect to ethernet, you use the wireless unit.

The problem with wireless between two points is the stability of the bandwidth. You can get one HD stream thru--sometimes.

The Cinema Connection Kit is really meant to connect your DVRs to the internet, not to each other or to TVs. Yes it can work in theory, but it is not a good solution for that.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ndole

Tom Robertson said:


> Umm... actually it is. Many times over. FCC controls the radio frequencies, connection standards, what TV ratings are and mean, what channels DIRECTV can redistribute and where, etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


None of those things have anything to do with LIMITING innovation in a free market between competing entities.

Gman on this side| Here's where you can operate your business model freely |Gman on this side.

Just the first thing that sticks out to me about the whole thing.​


----------



## Guest

Tom Robertson said:


> It is a bridge between a coax network and an ethernet network using wireless. So if you can't get the coax network close enough for the DECA broadband to connect to ethernet, you use the wireless unit.
> 
> The problem with wireless between two points is the stability of the bandwidth. You can get one HD stream thru--sometimes.
> 
> The Cinema Connection Kit is really meant to connect your DVRs to the internet, not to each other or to TVs. Yes it can work in theory, but it is not a good solution for that.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Then why would DTV go with wifi to distribute its signal all over the house to different clients if you don't recommend it? In that diagram I posted its shows all those devices hooked up to a PC, laptop ect. using a wifi router.


----------



## Tom Robertson

ndole_mbnd said:


> None of those things have anything to do with LIMITING innovation in a free market between competing entities.
> 
> Gman on this side| Here's where you can operate your business model freely |Gman on this side.
> 
> Just the first thing that sticks out to me about the whole thing.​


Look at the examples given and how a monopolistic based industry had any innovation before the gman stepped in, created some basic standards, then told the companies they could not restrict free trade.

Boom, phone services and features exploded with creativity and innovations when the government told the monopolies they had to play nice.

Perhaps if you rearrange your map: 
Gman standards | 
| Open way for all players to innovate
Gman rules |

Or as a foundation:

Level Playing Field for innovation, competition, growth
________________________________________________

Gman standards and rules (that require open competition.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ndole

Tom Robertson said:


> Look at the examples given and how a monopolistic based industry had any innovation before the gman stepped in, created some basic standards, then told the companies they could not restrict free trade.
> 
> Boom, phone services and features exploded with creativity and innovations when the government told the monopolies they had to play nice.
> 
> Perhaps if you rearrange your map:
> Gman standards |
> | Open way for all players to innovate
> Gman rules |
> 
> Or as a foundation:
> 
> Level Playing Field for innovation, competition, growth
> ________________________________________________
> 
> Gman standards and rules (that require open competition.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


And where exactly is Directv or any other direct to home provider fostering a monopoly. Telcos and satellite are like apples and oranges. I can just as easily have DISH in a few days, albeit at a much higher price tag. What dear horrible injustice does allvid solve?


----------



## Tom Robertson

ndole_mbnd said:


> And where exactly is Directv or any other direct to home provider fostering a monopoly. Telcos and satellite are like apples and oranges. I can just as easily have DISH in a few days, albeit at a much higher price tag. What dear horrible injustice does allvid solve?


How many VCR makers were there?


----------



## Guest

I get how the RVU app process works after reading this. Its just like how products have to be certified to work with Windows or OS X right? Or like how HDTV's have to be certified to work with HDMI because they have an HDMI spec. You would have to look for products that say on the outside of their box RVU Certified.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/RVU-Alliance-Certification-bw-4203265627.html?x=0&.v=1


----------



## ndole

Tom Robertson said:


> How many VCR makers were there?


Dozens and dozens.

You didn't answer my question. Because they aren't a monopoly. Problem solved= Leave them alone.


----------



## Tom Robertson

ndole_mbnd said:


> Dozens and dozens.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. Because they aren't a monopoly. Problem solved= Leave them alone.


You are correct, I have not yet answered your question. Answering is a process.

How many DVR makers are there?

And the bonus question?

Why isn't VCR = DVR? (Approximately that is.)


----------



## ndole

Tom Robertson said:


> You are correct, I have not yet answered your question. Answering is a process.
> 
> How many DVR makers are there?
> 
> And the bonus question?
> 
> Why isn't VCR = DVR? (Approximately that is.)


Well one thing is certain. Those questions fit in very well with some other ones in this thread


----------



## Tom Robertson

ndole_mbnd said:


> Well one thing is certain. Those questions fit in very well with some other ones in this thread


So now who isn't answering? 

Ponder my questions for a moment. Why aren't there 100s of DVR makers?


----------



## ndole

Tom Robertson said:


> So now who isn't answering?
> 
> Ponder my questions for a moment. Why aren't there 100s of DVR makers?


Who's DVRs? Directvs? Or do you mean altogether?

Altogether, cable etc, there are as many dvr makers as the market will support. As far as Directv goes, there are as many dvr makers as they see fit, and will pay for.

I don't see where this has anything to do with government restrictions.


----------



## BattleScott

ndole_mbnd said:


> . What dear horrible injustice does allvid solve?


The injustice of a closed market for digital television STB boxes and DVRs.


----------



## ndole

BattleScott said:


> The injustice of a closed market for digital television STB boxes and DVRs.


You want to start a company that builds stbs? What's stopping you?


----------



## LameLefty

ndole_mbnd said:


> You want to start a company that builds stbs? What's stopping you?


Being able to break into a tiny, tiny, highly-proprietary market, that's what. You have 2 buyers for satellite STBs, maybe half a dozen large players (if that many) in cable.


----------



## ndole

LameLefty said:


> Being able to break into a tiny, tiny, highly-proprietary market, that's what. You have 2 buyers for satellite STBs, maybe half a dozen large players (if that many) in cable.


Hey, if you can do it better.. do it. You'll make money.


----------



## LameLefty

ndole_mbnd said:


> Hey, if you can do it better.. do it. You'll make money.


You're missing the point. The "market" for STBs is currently tiny. If you create an industry regulation that eliminates the bottlenecks (satellite companies and cablecos), your market goes from 6 or 8 buyers, to TENS OF MILLIONS.

Then you will see those dozens or hundreds or even thousands of STB manufacturers.


----------



## houskamp

LameLefty said:


> You're missing the point. The "market" for STBs is currently tiny. If you create an industry regulation that eliminates the bottlenecks (satellite companies and cablecos), your market goes from 6 or 8 buyers, to TENS OF MILLIONS.
> 
> Then you will see those dozens or hundreds or even thousands of STB manufacturers.


 so each manufacturer will go thru all the work to design and produce only a few thousand each?


----------



## ndole

LameLefty said:


> You're missing the point. The "market" for STBs is currently tiny. If you create an industry regulation that eliminates the bottlenecks (satellite companies and cablecos), your market goes from 6 or 8 buyers, to TENS OF MILLIONS.
> 
> Then you will see those dozens or hundreds or even thousands of STB manufacturers.


I'm glad that you understand the implications of changing a whole industry, because you (and other assorted "thinkers") don't like the way it operates. The industry is the way it is, because this is the best way it can operate at the prices we can afford. Any regulatory muddling will make it a. crappier and b. more expensive.

Spare me the 15 pg article bee tee dubya.


----------



## LameLefty

ndole_mbnd said:


> I'm glad that you understand the implications of changing a whole industry, because you (and other assorted "thinkers") don't like the way it operates. The industry is the way it is, because this is the best way it can operate at the prices we can afford. Any regulatory muddling will make it a. crappier and b. more expensive.
> 
> Spare me the 15 pg article bee tee dubya.


Watch the broad brush you're painting with; you're spattering necon spooge all over the wrong target here, sport. I'm explaining the position, not saying I agree with it or even think it'll work that way in this case.

But do try broadening your viewpoints sometime without the knee-jerk insults and attacks next time. 

(For a start, try reading some American political history starting with, say, the transcontinental railway and including the Civil War to see how government intervention, regulation and control of resources and markets has been going on for a long time).


----------



## Tom Robertson

The market is closed by the cable monopolies. I can not make a DVR because the companies won't let me sell them. DIRECTV won't let me sell to their customers. Neither will Dish. 

Those are monopolies and there is no reason for it. Don't spout the market always knows best. Go buy some Enron electricity... 

There are government regulations that limit growth by causing barriers. I completely agree with you that those regulations are bad.

Then there are government regulations that open markets to competition. (If we wish to editorialize, we might agree there aren't many such regulations.) The standardization of TV channels, phone signals, cable modems, etc. 

Allvid tells cable companies they can no longer charge unlimited amounts of money for set top boxes that should only be $20 or $30 now. That cable companies can not stop TVs from accessing cable signals legally.

For years Dish and DIRECTV deserved a reasonable protection from the regulations opening things up. Their delivery model was so different. But now technology has made it reasonable for Dish and DIRECTV to compete in the same space as cable companies. Video is video is video. Why make the common demoninator be HDMI, why not make it DLNA? 

Open markets are what spur competition and innovation. Closed markets raise prices for the end users. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## houskamp

I'll bet if you could make one cheaper and supply the volume needed you could sell them to any of the companies.. 

I also highly doubt any of the current sat/cable companies went to just one vendor for a price on them..

market is controlling suppliers..

wonder how much of a deal they got on the -100s :lol:


----------



## inkahauts

They are monopolies in the dvr world because of Hollywood and their personal need to control what happens to their content, plain and simple. That is the first issue. The second is the large amount of consolidation. Companies don't want to support tons of different gui's, so if you force a system that will work with third parties, and allow the providers to differ customers to the hardware manufacturers then you might create more/better competition... But thats just not going to work...

I look at all vid as the government trying to do to the tv provider industry as the same type of thing as they did when they told hollywood that they had to stop owning all the theater chains, or the oil companies when they told them they had to stop owning all the gas stations. ( I really simplified all that, but I think the concept is there to see...)

The real question that must be asked is because of how things have changed, is doing the same basic thing really a proper solution in an attempt to create more competition, or should they be forcing a more open market to consumers in the way of providers, buy say forcing more open internet access, there bye allowing for more providers to show up, each with their own system, and possibly corralling ridiculous pricing that all the sat and cable companies are passing on to the consumer from the broadcasters, rather than worrying about how we record our stuff and making sure we only have a subset choice rather than a real overall choice, or more choices I should say.


----------



## RobertE

What is the topic of this thread again?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Tom Robertson said:


> That still doesn't change the vision. Only the details.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Many say the devil's in the details.  

Going back full circle on topic...

Since there are a number of manufacturers looking to deploy RVU-based devices in the near term...it would seem we might see HR34 still some time in 2011.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

"RobertE" said:


> What is the topic of this thread again?


Good question. Let's get back to the topic, its the HR34 for those that may have forgotten.


----------



## BattleScott

houskamp said:


> I'll bet if you could make one cheaper and supply the volume needed you could sell them to any of the companies..
> 
> I also highly doubt any of the current sat/cable companies went to just one vendor for a price on them..
> 
> market is controlling suppliers..
> 
> wonder how much of a deal they got on the -100s :lol:


This is happening today, but all that does is "replace" one supplier with another witihin the contolled market. It does nothing to increase the competition and choice in the consumer market.


----------



## BattleScott

Scott Kocourek said:


> Good question. Let's get back to the topic, its the HR34 for those that may have forgotten.


How are the field trials going? Haven't heard much about them...


----------



## NR4P

With all the attention on the HR34, I wonder if any C30's are out in the trial?


----------



## Doug Brott

BattleScott said:


> How are the field trials going? Haven't heard much about them...


:shrug:


----------



## Guest

I think I am learning more how the RVU hooks up to other equipment. 

Would it be better hooking a router to the RVU server and having the broadband modem hooked to a PC?

Or have the broadband modem hooked to the RVU server and have the PC hooked to the broadband modem?


----------



## ndole

CraigerCSM said:


> I think I am learning more how the RVU hooks up to other equipment.
> 
> Would it be better hooking a router to the RVU server and having the broadband modem hooked to a PC?
> 
> Or have the broadband modem hooked to the RVU server and have the PC hooked to the broadband modem?


:scratchin


----------



## Go Beavs

NR4P said:


> With all the attention on the HR34, I wonder if any C30's are out in the trial?


I would imagine so as it would be hard to test RVU without a client.

I can't imagine DIRECTV sending out compatible displays to testers, although I wouldn't complain if I had to test one. 

Though, if anyone knows, I'm sure they won't be telling us about it.


----------



## Guest

Or does the RVU Server have a router built in?


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> I think I am learning more how the RVU hooks up to other equipment.
> 
> Would it be better hooking a router to the RVU server and having the broadband modem hooked to a PC?
> 
> Or have the broadband modem hooked to the RVU server and have the PC hooked to the broadband modem?


Please refer back to this post where you "figured it out" yesterday. The answer is there.


----------



## Herdfan

Tom Robertson said:


> You are correct, I have not yet answered your question. Answering is a process.
> 
> How many DVR makers are there?
> 
> And the bonus question?
> 
> Why isn't VCR = DVR? (Approximately that is.)





Tom Robertson said:


> So now who isn't answering?
> 
> Ponder my questions for a moment. Why aren't there 100s of DVR makers?


Couple of reasons.

1) Patents. Both Sony and JVC licensed their VCR technology to multiple vendors. TiVo and Replay did not. TiVo in fact uses the courts to try and keep others from making DVR's. I think they are 1-0-1.

2) MSO's did not make VCR's or provide them. It may exist, but I never saw and integrated cablebox and VCR combo. They do provide DVR's. Many people call them TiVo's even though they are made by SA or Motorola.

My guess is that #2 is what you are looking for. With the current TiVo model, you have to 1) buy the box and 2) then pay TiVo for guide data and still can't get all of the features. People don't want to pay twice. Especially when TiVo charges more per month for "service" than the cableco does for the box and service.

But enter a world where you just buy the box and have no service fees, that could change things. Most users than have used a TiVo, DirecTV, Dish or UTV DVR don't like cableco boxes. So their is a market out there.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> Or does the RVU Server have a router built in?


You've already asked that same question earlier in the thread .. the answer is still no.


----------



## Guest

One final time.

The RVU Server hooks into the broadband modem gateway or a router then the broadband modem gateway or router hooks into the RVU Certified HDTV, PC, BluRay Player or Game Console.


----------



## Doug Brott

Herdfan said:


> But enter a world where you just buy the box and have no service fees, that could change things. Most users than have used a TiVo, DirecTV, Dish or UTV DVR don't like cableco boxes. So their is a market out there.


At $30/pop for a dumb DVR as Tom suggested perhaps, but TiVo as a prime example isn't making money on box that sells for $100 or more and has a $20/month fee. Perhaps they would if more people took it .. so the price could come down.

What would be a reasonable price point in the consumer market .. Something that would get people to buy a client box rather than use the current model?

The basics .. let's say the average box stays in use for 3 years .. Some early adopters start burning a hole in their pocket so they ante up every year or every other year, but a lot of "I don't like change" people keep it for 4 or 5 years. So on the balance let's just say everyone keeps a box for 3 years.

@ the current going rate of ~$6/month per box (this is likely the minimum since DIRECTV as a service provider can afford to keep prices as low as possible on the hardware) you'd have a 3-year payment on that box of $216. DIRECTV also charges $199 for the DVR, but let's call it $99 to average out the "free" vs. "full fare" payers. I think that's fair, but I also think it's low as most don't get a "free" one. That puts the bare minimum average payment of $315 per box. DIRECTV continues to own this hardware in this scenario as well.

The closest thing I can think of to compare that cost with is the 32GB iPhone which retails for $299 (but you own it) under a 2-year service contract. The no-contract version of the same phone costs $749.

So, for independent STB maker to make money (development, shipping, etc.) The price per box would range from $30 (according to Tom) up to about $750 (according to me). Oh, and those numbers are from millions of units shipped. What is the TV consumer going to choose? The real consumer, not the "I've gotta have the best" consumer.

I suspect that that $750 price point will be not utilized heavily .. and will need to be higher because the number of buyers will be smaller, but we can leave it at $750.

On a 3 year sliding scale you'd have:



$ upfront|$ per month (in continuum)
0|21
100|18
200|15
That would get you roughly to the $750 which (based on iPhone numbers) could be profitable for a company (meaning they'd have a reason to do it).

This would be per-TV that you wanted to hook up and there would be not deals from your MSO for hardware (unless they made a smart Allvid client as well). I'd presume at that point, the gateway into the home would be part of the cost of the service so DIRECTV would pick up the cost of the hardware but back charge you as part of your bill - either way it wouldn't influence your decision.

The good news in Allvid is that you could take your boxes to the next provider down the line if you wanted.


----------



## Doug Brott

CraigerCSM said:


> One final time.
> 
> The RVU Server hooks into the broadband modem gateway or a router then the broadband modem gateway or router hooks into the RVU Certified HDTV, PC, BluRay Player or Game Console.


The RVU server, the RVU Certified HDTV, PC BlueRay Player and Game Console hooks into your home network. Just like the diagram you posted.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

BattleScott said:


> How are the field trials going? Haven't heard much about them...


Ha Ha, I've never seen one.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Herdfan said:


> Couple of reasons.
> 
> 1) Patents. Both Sony and JVC licensed their VCR technology to multiple vendors. TiVo and Replay did not. TiVo in fact uses the courts to try and keep others from making DVR's. I think they are 1-0-1.
> 
> 2) MSO's did not make VCR's or provide them. It may exist, but I never saw and integrated cablebox and VCR combo. They do provide DVR's. Many people call them TiVo's even though they are made by SA or Motorola.
> 
> My guess is that #2 is what you are looking for. With the current TiVo model, you have to 1) buy the box and 2) then pay TiVo for guide data and still can't get all of the features. People don't want to pay twice. Especially when TiVo charges more per month for "service" than the cableco does for the box and service.
> 
> But enter a world where you just buy the box and have no service fees, that could change things. Most users than have used a TiVo, DirecTV, Dish or UTV DVR don't like cableco boxes. So their is a market out there.


Good answers! Top marks for getting both of them. 

Patents are a problem but probably not impossible. I think TiVo made yet another mistake by trying to hold their licenses rather than selling license fees.

The real problem, in my mind is MSOs wanted the fees. (nothing wrong with wanting fees, by the way.)  But in doing so they didn't allow competition, which in turn stifled innovation.

Had the MSOs embraced cablecard technologies, they likely could have made even more money and gotten out of the hardware business. Instead, they required STBs and pissed off the FCC and Congress. Oops.

20 years ago, I would have never expected a VCR for $30. Yet it happened.

And while I do not expect to see $30 DVRs for a few years, I do think it can happen. Dish/Echostar came closer than I thought possible this soon with their models for OTA.

AllVid or RVU can allow inexpensive DVRs and clients. I'm not tied to TiVo's UI, nor am I really tied to DIRECTVs. I want good features, good price, good service.

Then again, what if I really wanted a DIRECTV UI yet I lived somewheres I couldn't get DIRECTV? I'd be glad if I could get a DIRECTV DVR there.

It is all about giving customers choices, freeing up designers for creativity, and saving money for the customers. (Hint for marketing folks--if you free up money in the hands of customers in areas they don't want to spend, you get the opportunity for them to spend it on things they want to spend it on--hopefully higher margin stuff.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts

Herdfan said:


> Couple of reasons.
> 
> 1) Patents. Both Sony and JVC licensed their VCR technology to multiple vendors. TiVo and Replay did not. TiVo in fact uses the courts to try and keep others from making DVR's. I think they are 1-0-1.
> 
> 2) MSO's did not make VCR's or provide them. It may exist, but I never saw and integrated cablebox and VCR combo. They do provide DVR's. Many people call them TiVo's even though they are made by SA or Motorola.
> 
> My guess is that #2 is what you are looking for. With the current TiVo model, you have to 1) buy the box and 2) then pay TiVo for guide data and still can't get all of the features. People don't want to pay twice. Especially when TiVo charges more per month for "service" than the cableco does for the box and service.
> 
> But enter a world where you just buy the box and have no service fees, that could change things. Most users than have used a TiVo, DirecTV, Dish or UTV DVR don't like cableco boxes. So their is a market out there.


Replaytv actually did try and license themselves to others, but unfortunately, they only found a few small dogs that didn't provide them enough money to keep afloat, as I recall.. I think they where going the software for ATT cable systems.. (not u-verse, but actual cable, which I am not even sure if they still exist)

Tivo, well they did try and just license their software in an attempt to get out of the hardware business, they just completely failed at it... Most recently, they are failing at it with Directv...


----------



## inkahauts

CraigerCSM said:


> One final time.
> 
> The RVU Server hooks into the broadband modem gateway or a router then the broadband modem gateway or router hooks into the RVU Certified HDTV, PC, BluRay Player or Game Console.


You just have to plug everything into the home network, and it will just work, just as hooking up multiple computers to your home network gets them all access to the internet, as well as each other.

That's the simple goal. Some units may use different types of cables nativley to connect to a home network, but there are converters that will allow different kinds of connection technologies to work with each other, i.e. Ethernet cables to connect to deca devices. There is not any set order in which they all need to be connected, they just all need to be connected, just like your current home network.


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> AllVid or RVU can allow inexpensive DVRs and clients.


With RVU, the DVR has to be expensive while the clients are cheap. With AllVid, the cost is more evenly distributed between servers and clients.


----------



## Herdfan

Tom Robertson said:


> And while I do not expect to see $30 DVRs for a few years, I do think it can happen.


But could you imagine a $30 STB that could become a DVR with the addition of an external HHD? Someone buys the STB and then later decides they want a DVR. No problem, head to WalMart and pick up a 320GB external drive for $50 and plug it in. The STB recognizes the HDD and reconfigures its software to be a DVR.


----------



## Doug Brott

Herdfan said:


> But could you imagine a $30 STB that could become a DVR with the addition of an external HHD? Someone buys the STB and then later decides they want a DVR. No problem, head to WalMart and pick up a 320GB external drive for $50 and plug it in. The STB recognizes the HDD and reconfigures its software to be a DVR.


It's a good thought, but honestly, I don't see a market for something like this. It's cool for geeks .. expect geeks would get the HDD to begin with, not later. Everyone else just wants to watch TV.


----------



## ndole

Sure would be less to do if EVERYONE had an unsupported setup like this. It's stupid.


----------



## RAD

Doug Brott said:


> It's a good thought, but honestly, I don't see a market for something like this. It's cool for geeks .. expect geeks would get the HDD to begin with, not later. Everyone else just wants to watch TV.


I wonder what the take rate for Dish and their STB's that do exactly that, add a USB drive to a receiver and turn it into a DVR?


----------



## Tom Robertson

ndole_mbnd said:


> Sure would be less to do if EVERYONE had an unsupported setup like this. It's stupid.


Less for whom?

Do you need an installer come and hook up your phone? (Given what you do and what I know you know, I sure hope not.)  

Do you need an installer come and hook up your TV?

Did you need someone to install your VCR?

I sure don't need AT&T to charge me $70 to hook up my phone and then charge me $1.50 per month. I don't need Comcast to charge me to hook up a bad DVR and charge me $12.95 a month.

I'd much rather buy a great DVR, from a manufacturer _I_ want, with features I want, with capacity that I specify and be done with it. Sure, comcast might charge me a small outlet fee, or per stream fee.

I also don't want to be forced to buy a set top box just so a TV can tune channels. What's up with that? My mother-in-law could not operate a STB as she got older. And she didn't need one if AllVid and the TV worked together.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

Herdfan said:


> But could you imagine a $30 STB that could become a DVR with the addition of an external HHD? Someone buys the STB and then later decides they want a DVR. No problem, head to WalMart and pick up a 320GB external drive for $50 and plug it in. The STB recognizes the HDD and reconfigures its software to be a DVR.





Doug Brott said:


> It's a good thought, but honestly, I don't see a market for something like this. It's cool for geeks .. expect geeks would get the HDD to begin with, not later. Everyone else just wants to watch TV.


I tend to agree with Doug on both parts: good thought and not sure if there is a market for it.

Yet the thing is with AllVid the market gets to test this idea out and see if there really is such a market. 

Or TVs that have enough RAM to do pause but not record.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RobertE

Tom Robertson said:


> Less for whom?
> 
> Do you need an installer come and hook up your phone? (Given what you do and what I know you know, I sure hope not.)
> 
> Do you need an installer come and hook up your TV?
> 
> Did you need someone to install your VCR?
> 
> I sure don't need AT&T to charge me $70 to hook up my phone and then charge me $1.50 per month. I don't need Comcast to charge me to hook up a bad DVR and charge me $12.95 a month.
> 
> I'd much rather buy a great DVR, from a manufacturer _I_ want, with features I want, with capacity that I specify and be done with it. Sure, comcast might charge me a small outlet fee, or per stream fee.
> 
> I also don't want to be forced to buy a set top box just so a TV can tune channels. What's up with that? My mother-in-law could not operate a STB as she got older. And she didn't need one if AllVid and the TV worked together.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


People are stupid.

People pay geek squad every day to plug in an hdmi cable from their blu ray to their tv. Same with their vcr, dvd, etc.

Let me ask this.

With allvid, who does the customer call when they have a service issue?

Does it become DirecTvs, Dish or the cable co problem when the customers pos $30 wally world dvr is acting up?

How do you know if it's something up to the gateway or after? Where does the responsibility begin and end for everyone?


----------



## ndole

Tom Robertson said:


> Less for whom?
> 
> Do you need an installer come and hook up your phone? (Given what you do and what I know you know, I sure hope not.)
> 
> Do you need an installer come and hook up your TV?
> 
> Did you need someone to install your VCR?
> 
> I sure don't need AT&T to charge me $70 to hook up my phone and then charge me $1.50 per month. I don't need Comcast to charge me to hook up a bad DVR and charge me $12.95 a month.
> 
> I'd much rather buy a great DVR, from a manufacturer _I_ want, with features I want, with capacity that I specify and be done with it. Sure, comcast might charge me a small outlet fee, or per stream fee.
> 
> I also don't want to be forced to buy a set top box just so a TV can tune channels. What's up with that? My mother-in-law could not operate a STB as she got older. And she didn't need one if AllVid and the TV worked together.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


No offense Tom, but you (like most people here) are, affectionately, a nerd. That cares about features and manufacturers. You are not the average customer. Do you know what the average customer wants? Free $h!t. There isn't a compelling argument to be made that the current system is any worse than this concocted scheme.


----------



## houskamp

Tom Robertson said:


> Less for whom?
> 
> Do you need an installer come and hook up your phone? (Given what you do and what I know you know, I sure hope not.)
> 
> Do you need an installer come and hook up your TV?
> 
> Did you need someone to install your VCR?
> 
> I sure don't need AT&T to charge me $70 to hook up my phone and then charge me $1.50 per month. I don't need Comcast to charge me to hook up a bad DVR and charge me $12.95 a month.
> 
> I'd much rather buy a great DVR, from a manufacturer _I_ want, with features I want, with capacity that I specify and be done with it. Sure, comcast might charge me a small outlet fee, or per stream fee.
> 
> I also don't want to be forced to buy a set top box just so a TV can tune channels. What's up with that? My mother-in-law could not operate a STB as she got older. And she didn't need one if AllVid and the TV worked together.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


 Great irony in that post.. most of the people here problably could hook one up, but as you and many others have said before: we're not most people..

I know many who can barely even turn on a tv (my wife and my brother for starters)...


----------



## Tom Robertson

RobertE said:


> People are stupid.
> 
> People pay geek squad every day to plug in an hdmi cable from their blu ray to their tv. Same with their vcr, dvd, etc.
> 
> Let me ask this.
> 
> With allvid, who does the customer call when they have a service issue?
> 
> Does it become DirecTvs, Dish or the cable co problem when the customers pos $30 wally world dvr is acting up?
> 
> How do you know if it's something up to the gateway or after? Where does the responsibility begin and end for everyone?


Yes, _some_ people are stupid. And many, many more are ignorant. (Actually, near as I can tell, 100% of people are ignorant of something...) So they will hire someone and spend ghastly amounts of money to install when a few years before DIRECTV would do that for free... That is part of the reality.

And many more people will have son-in-laws or daughter-in-laws that will buy them a DVR and hook it up for them. Remember the many VCRs given as gifts that way?

And don't forget the neighbor 13 year old kids who will hook up lots of stuff for chocolate chip cookies. 

Who do you call when your $5 phone stops working? You go check the other one before you decide. Who do you call when your $100+$5/month set top box stops working? You go check the other room before you decide if it really is the TV instead.

Yes, there will be many learning curves. The phone companies had to learn how to answer these basic calls. They learned to put smarter equipment in the field to let them test lines without having to ask the customer to do anything. They started to charge fees for needless truck rolls.

And customers learned to check the other phone.  Just as they will learn to check the other TVs. Call their kids for help. etc.

Think of the waste DIRECTV has now. There is never a reason to roll a truck to my house. (Except on chocolate chip cookie day, maybe.) It got so silly, the supervisor would send his rookies to my house to learn from me how to handle large installs. Or the latest equipment since he know I already had it and would have installed it correctly.  Yet "by the rules" they had to roll a truck. (I just laugh at this point.)

What you also point out very clearly is that the smarter the gateway is for diagnosing remotely for DIRECTV, the easier things will be for everyone. And as we talk about this, the easier things are for the customer to self-diagnose, things are even better yet.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RobertE

Tom Robertson said:


> Yes, _some_ people are stupid. And many, many more are ignorant. (Actually, near as I can tell, 100% of people are ignorant of something...) So they will hire someone and spend ghastly amounts of money to install when a few years before DIRECTV would do that for free... That is part of the reality.
> 
> And many more people will have son-in-laws or daughter-in-laws that will buy them a DVR and hook it up for them. Remember the many VCRs given as gifts that way?
> 
> And don't forget the neighbor 13 year old kids who will hook up lots of stuff for chocolate chip cookies.
> 
> Who do you call when your $5 phone stops working? You go check the other one before you decide. Who do you call when your $100+$5/month set top box stops working? You go check the other room before you decide if it really is the TV instead.
> 
> Yes, there will be many learning curves. The phone companies had to learn how to answer these basic calls. They learned to put smarter equipment in the field to let them test lines without having to ask the customer to do anything. They started to charge fees for needless truck rolls.
> 
> And customers learned to check the other phone.  Just as they will learn to check the other TVs. Call their kids for help. etc.
> 
> Think of the waste DIRECTV has now. There is never a reason to roll a truck to my house. (Except on chocolate chip cookie day, maybe.) It got so silly, the supervisor would send his rookies to my house to learn from me how to handle large installs. Or the latest equipment since he know I already had it and would have installed it correctly.  Yet "by the rules" they had to roll a truck. (I just laugh at this point.)
> 
> What you also point out very clearly is that the smarter the gateway is for diagnosing remotely for DIRECTV, the easier things will be for everyone. And as we talk about this, the easier things are for the customer to self-diagnose, things are even better yet.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I'd like to visit this utopia reality that you describe.

What I and others that interact with the general populous see each and every day, is a far different reality. Sad, but true.


----------



## Tom Robertson

ndole_mbnd said:


> No offense Tom, but you (like most people here) are, affectionately, a nerd.


I accept that as a compliment. Thank you. 


ndole_mbnd said:


> That cares about features and manufacturers. You are not the average customer. Do you know what the average customer wants? Free $h!t. There isn't a compelling argument to be made that the current system is any worse than this concocted scheme.


Yes, I understand the free $sh!t concept. You should see what my daughter-in-law is able get companies to give her.

My current thinking is DIRECTV will roll a truck to install the dish, the gateway, and connect it to "the network". If the gateway is able to hook into a TV, that would be arranged too. (And would be a wise thing too, going back to the self-diagnosis strategy.)

Then DIRECTV would have the opportunity to sell other hookups using a variety of clients and techniques.

Eventually the marketplace will decide if DIRECTV should do all the installs for a DIRECTV based home or if customers really don't want that. Who wants AT&T to install phones in their homes today? Get a 10 year old for phones, 13 year old for AllVid. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ndole

Tom Robertson said:


> Yes, _some_ people are stupid. And many, many more are ignorant. (Actually, near as I can tell, 100% of people are ignorant of something...) So they will hire someone and spend ghastly amounts of money to install when a few years before DIRECTV would do that for free... That is part of the reality.
> 
> *"The reality". Um no. That's not how it HAS TO BE. It's a dumb plan.*
> 
> And many more people will have son-in-laws or daughter-in-laws that will buy them a DVR and hook it up for them. Remember the many VCRs given as gifts that way?
> 
> And don't forget the neighbor 13 year old kids who will hook up lots of stuff for chocolate chip cookies.
> 
> *So lets do away with (lots and lots of) installers.. Is that really an argument you want to make here?* *Oh, because a 13yr old kid can do my job, following osha regs, and using power tools, being educated on frequency ranges, equipment issues, troubleshooting and years of experience. *
> 
> Who do you call when your $5 phone stops working? You go check the other one before you decide. Who do you call when your $100+$5/month set top box stops working? You go check the other room before you decide if it really is the TV instead.
> 
> *That's BS troubleshooting. I know people who do that every day. And they have problem after problem because all they know how to do is "Swap it" instead of finding the problem (Most people wouldn't have a damned clue).*
> 
> Yes, there will be many learning curves. The phone companies had to learn how to answer these basic calls. They learned to put smarter equipment in the field to let them test lines without having to ask the customer to do anything. They started to charge fees for needless truck rolls.
> 
> And customers learned to check the other phone.  Just as they will learn to check the other TVs. Call their kids for help. etc.
> 
> Think of the waste DIRECTV has now. There is never a reason to roll a truck to my house. (Except on chocolate chip cookie day, maybe.) It got so silly, the supervisor would send his rookies to my house to learn from me how to handle large installs. Or the latest equipment since he know I already had it and would have installed it correctly.  Yet "by the rules" they had to roll a truck. (I just laugh at this point.)
> 
> What you also point out very clearly is that the smarter the gateway is for diagnosing remotely for DIRECTV, the easier things will be for everyone. And as we talk about this, the easier things are for the customer to self-diagnose, things are even better yet.
> 
> *There's a HUGE difference between (sometimes) identifying a problem, and knowing how to fix it correctly.*
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

houskamp said:


> Great irony in that post.. most of the people here problably could hook one up, but as you and many others have said before: we're not most people..
> 
> I know many who can barely even turn on a tv (my wife and my brother for starters)...


Yet your wife and brother are forced to use a STB. Why is that? Why did I have to give my mother-in-law a very limited basic analogue cable system because she couldn't handle a STB. With Allvid and an AllVid ready TV (or if the cable companies really supported cablecard) she could handle the few basic functions she needed: On, volume up and down, channel up. (At some point she really didn't get channel down anymore.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

RobertE said:


> I'd like to visit this utopia reality that you describe.
> 
> What I and others that interact with the general populous see each and every day, is a far different reality. Sad, but true.


Do the populous you describe know how to plug in a phone? Do they need AT&T to come out?

Can they plug a TV into cable?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RobertE

Tom Robertson said:


> Yet your wife and brother are forced to use a STB. Why is that? Why did I have to give my mother-in-law a very limited basic analogue cable system because she couldn't handle a STB. With Allvid and an AllVid ready TV (or if the cable companies really supported cablecard) she could handle the few basic functions she needed: On, volume up and down, channel up. (At some point she really didn't get channel down anymore.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


That can be done with a STB as well. Lock the tv to ch 3/4 or whatever input is used. Hide the tv remote. Use STB box remote to change channels, turn tv off/on and tv volume.

Allvid is a solution looking for a problem.

It's yet another waste of my taxpayer dollars.


----------



## houskamp

so you're also gonna expect a Directv installer to run cat5 cables and mess with coustomers network? 

I wouldn't let one near my network..


----------



## RobertE

Tom Robertson said:


> Do the populous you describe know how to plug in a phone?


About 50/50



Tom Robertson said:


> Do they need AT&T to come out?


Yep



Tom Robertson said:


> Can they plug a TV into cable?
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Barely.

Come here, ride with me for a week. Let me enlighten you on the operations of the real world.


----------



## houskamp

here's your typical coustomer:

my brother freaked out the other day.. had to call to get some software upgrade.. guy started giving him a web address to fill out a form.. "wait wait wait!! let me have you talk to my brother, I don't know anything about computers"


----------



## Jeremy W

ndole_mbnd said:


> So lets do away with (lots and lots of) installers.. Is that really an argument you want to make here? Oh, because a 13yr old kid can do my job, following osha regs, and using power tools, being educated on frequency ranges, equipment issues, troubleshooting and years of experience.


And that's what it comes down to. You're worried that your job will be minimized. Installers will still need to install the dish and connect it to the gateway. They just won't be needed to install STBs. And why should they be?

[redacted]


----------



## RobertE

Jeremy W said:


> And that's what it comes down to. You're worried that your job will be minimized. Installers will still need to install the dish and connect it to the gateway. They just won't be needed to install STBs. And why should they be?
> 
> [redacted]


No need to be rude and insulting.

Who makes the connection between the gateway and the customers wallyworld $30 dvr? Who maintains that part when they have problems? Who teaches them on how to use that pos dvr?


----------



## ndole

Jeremy W said:


> And that's what it comes down to. You're worried that your job will be minimized. Installers will still need to install the dish and connect it to the gateway. They just won't be needed to install STBs. And why should they be?
> 
> [redacted]


I don't install anything. So get your facts straight.
Installers get payed to run cable to outlets and set up IRDs. ODU paylines don't pay anything.

Have you ever seen a dozen "do it yourself" jobs? Customers have unrealistic expectations as to how to get a reliable signal from a to b. To be completely honest, they're completely incompetent at installing coax. Hell, for that matter so are most electricians. You want to know why? Because it's not their job.

Cool it.


----------



## houskamp

RobertE said:


> No need to be rude and insulting.
> 
> Who makes the connection between the gateway and the customers wallyworld $30 dvr? Who maintains that part when they have problems? Who teaches them on how to use that pos dvr?


 D tech: "well I'm done, your directv is hooked up"
coustomer:"How do I watch it?"
Dtech:"not my problem, you bought/installed the tv, Have a good day"


----------



## RobertE

houskamp said:


> D tech: "well I'm done, your directv is hooked up"
> coustomer:"How do I watch it?"
> Dtech:"not my problem, you bought/installed the tv, Have a good day"


Yep.


----------



## Tom Robertson

ndole_mbnd said:


> [regarding stupid people spending lots of money]
> *"The reality". Um no. That's not how it HAS TO BE. It's a dumb plan.*


It is not my plan for ignorant people to spend ghastly amounts of money. That is the reality that you pointed out and is already happening today.


ndole_mbnd said:


> *So lets do away with (lots and lots of) installers.. Is that really an argument you want to make here?* *Oh, because a 13yr old kid can do my job, following osha regs, and using power tools, being educated on frequency ranges, equipment issues, troubleshooting and years of experience. *


There is no doubt in my mind that DIRECTV will still roll trucks to install dishes and the gateway. Even though there are some 13 year olds that can do it, DIRECTV, reasonably, won't let them. 

But does my wife, very non-technical, really need to call you to plug a TV into the cable? You really can't expect us to believe that.

Besides, for big TVs, Bestbuy will do the install and calibration.

Now, it is a sad fact that DIRECTV might not need so many installers. And I do feel for the great ones; while I hope they will continue, yet I also know some of the installer companies don't have a clue how to keep the best.


ndole_mbnd said:


> *That's BS troubleshooting. I know people who do that every day. And they have problem after problem because all they know how to do is "Swap it" instead of finding the problem (Most people wouldn't have a damned clue).*


But people know how to call a friend or family member who does know what to do. (I get phone calls weekly about PCs.)


ndole_mbnd said:


> *There's a HUGE difference between (sometimes) identifying a problem, and knowing how to fix it correctly.*


Sorry if this vision scares you. In reality you (and RobertE) both _should_ be ok, if management realizes the value of keeping good installers.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

houskamp said:


> so you're also gonna expect a Directv installer to run cat5 cables and mess with coustomers network?
> 
> I wouldn't let one near my network..


No, but they are expected to now. 

(And no, I don't let them touch mine either. A couple of cold ones and a ten minute sign off when they are forced to drop equipment typically makes them happy.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

RobertE said:


> That can be done with a STB as well. Lock the tv to ch 3/4 or whatever input is used. Hide the tv remote. Use STB box remote to change channels, turn tv off/on and tv volume.


Why do I need a STB in the first place? That is the uppercut that you caught on the chin by dodging the jab.


RobertE said:


> Allvid is a solution looking for a problem.
> 
> It's yet another waste of my taxpayer dollars.


This is but a small example of the problem being solved.

Now, if industries would be smart and do things the right ways, we wouldn't need a government to set standards. But, not surprisingly, that doesn't happen. So government sets standards, industry whines and complains, then whole new industries get started when people get to choose how to spend their monies.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

RobertE said:


> ...
> Who makes the connection between the gateway and the customers wallyworld $30 dvr? Who maintains that part when they have problems? Who teaches them on how to use that pos dvr?


Haven't you been following?  Thirteen year olds.  (Sorry, you kinda suckered yourself into that one.)

People don't need a highly trained technician to plug the TV in.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RobertE

Tom Robertson said:


> Why do I need a STB in the first place? That is the uppercut that you caught on the chin by dodging the jab.
> This is but a small example of the problem being solved.
> 
> Now, if industries would be smart and do things the right ways, we wouldn't need a government to set standards. But, not surprisingly, that doesn't happen. So government sets standards, industry whines and complains, then whole new industries get started when people get to choose how to spend their monies.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom





Tom Robertson said:


> Haven't you been following?  Thirteen year olds.  (Sorry, you kinda suckered yourself into that one.)
> 
> People don't need a highly trained technician to plug the TV in.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Can you answer the questions without some sort of smartass cutesy remark? It's unbecoming of someone that carries the moderator tag. Smilies or not, those remarks are unprofessional, don't address the questions and are trollish.


----------



## ndole

Tom Robertson said:


> Why do I need a STB in the first place? That is the uppercut that you caught on the chin by dodging the jab.
> This is but a small example of the problem being solved.
> 
> *Now, if industries would be smart and do things the right ways*, we wouldn't need a government to set standards. But, not surprisingly, that doesn't happen. So government sets standards, industry whines and complains, then whole new industries get started when people get to choose how to spend their monies.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


:bang It's not their job to tell industry how to do theirs. If the business model for any (mind you we're talking about DIRECT TO HOME!) provider doesn't work.. THEY FAIL!! Guess what happens next? Some genius comes up with a better idea. How in the world do you think that we get the innovation that has led to the greatest concentration of wealth and power in the history of the world?!
It was NOT government regulation. Screwing everything up, in the name of _fairness_.


----------



## Jeremy W

ndole_mbnd said:


> It's not their job to tell industry how to do theirs.


In many, *many* cases, it absolutely is.


ndole_mbnd said:


> If the business model for any (mind you we're talking about DIRECT TO HOME!) provider doesn't work.. THEY FAIL!!


Sometimes, things get so out of control that the market cannot fix them. Back when the TV providers were getting started, something like AllVid was impossible. Now, the providers have zero incentive to upset the status quo, no matter how good it would be for customers. And if customers want any kind of multi-channel service, they have no choice but to opt in to the status quo. The market, by itself, *cannot* fix this. This sort of situation is exactly when the government needs to step in.


----------



## ndole

Jeremy W said:


> In many, *many* cases, it absolutely is.
> 
> Sometimes, things get so out of control that the market cannot fix them. Back when the TV providers were getting started, something like AllVid was impossible. Now, the providers have zero incentive to upset the status quo, no matter how good it would be for customers. And if customers want any kind of multi-channel service, they have no choice but to opt in to the status quo. The market, by itself, *cannot* fix this. This sort of situation is exactly when the government needs to step in.


*FIX WHAT?*

Wtf are you people talking about? Where is the injustice? What is the social economic dilemma here that needs Government intervention?

To be completely honest, it's moronic for congress to even have something this stupid on their radar. It's like worrying about what color to paint the bathroom while the rest of the house is burning to the ground. Gese


----------



## Tom Robertson

RobertE said:


> Can you answer the questions without some sort of smartass cutesy remark?


Yes, I believe I can. And many times I do. Yet I would rather try to interject some humor, especially the obvious, than be uptight all the time. For most people, this topic does not represent their job. You've read them say what it means to them, variations on "chill, it's just TV." Might as well have some fun.

Yet, this is your job we are discussing, I won't say that.

Thankfully there are some reasons why you personally should not worry. Good and great techs should be recognized by their companies and be the ones kept--if there is a downsizing.

Second even if the rules started today, it will be a few years before things would change enough for any downsizing to really start.

Third, you have the advantage of seeing this coming. You can get yourself in a position where you are safe from these changes.


RobertE said:


> It's unbecoming of someone that carries the moderator tag. Smilies or not, those remarks are unprofessional, don't address the questions and are trollish.


To each of these I disagree.

If you feel otherwise, remember there are proper ways to address such. PMs are a good way to start. Another is to use the report post button if my posts are particularly egregious.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W

ndole_mbnd said:


> Wtf are you people talking about? Where is the injustice? What is the social economic dilemma here that needs Government intervention?


The injustice is that the MPEG4 audio/video streams coming into my house from my TV provider are currently treated as something unique and mystical, when they're no different from the MPEG4 audio/video streams coming into my house from my ISP. The injustice is that the TV MPEG4 audio/video streams can only be consumed by "approved equipment" while ISP MPEG4 audio/video streams can be consumed by whatever I damn well want to consume them with.

This stupidity needs to end, and AllVid is (hopefully) what will end it.


----------



## LameLefty

Lesson for certain readers:

Government's role is not merely to end or prevent "injustice." Government's role (among many) is to regulate interstate commerce. There is approximately 200 years of jurisprudence from the United States Supreme Court on exactly what this means and what it entails. Please read more of that law than the soundbites on Tea Party websites and blogs.

kthxbai


----------



## Tom Robertson

ndole_mbnd said:


> *FIX WHAT?*
> 
> Wtf are you people talking about? Where is the injustice? What is the social economic dilemma here that needs Government intervention?
> 
> To be completely honest, it's moronic for congress to even have something this stupid on their radar. It's like worrying about what color to paint the bathroom while the rest of the house is burning to the ground. Gese


Not all rules and regulations rise to the level of solving the worlds largest problems. Sometimes they need to be as simple as "the speed limit on this street is 25." Or "Channel 2 is this frequency with this bandwidth." Or "phone jacks shall be RJ11."

Now, if am a permitted a semi-cutesy remark, I'm not sure I want government to try to solve the big world problems. Those, they tend to muck up. 

Many people do not need a STB on their TV. I don't want the extra power draw if I don't need it. Yet I am required to? Why? There is no reason for it, except cable companies, legalized monopolies, are abusing their powers and forcing people to. And forcing people to waste money they don't need to.

That is the injustice. Is it life threatening? No, not really. The FCC isn't meant to do too much in the life threatening department.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

... And with that .. we are way off topic for the thread, down a spiraling path that we needn't follow. So it is with regret that I am now closing this thread.


----------



## Tom Robertson

<moderator mea culpa> This topic was either very narrow "DIRECTV is testing RVU" or rather broad, the capabilities of the HR34, DECA, RVU, etc. Hard to decide.

There is another thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=176115 that is all about AllVid and now that I found it, I wished I had steered all the RVU and AllVid discussions there.

So better late than never, let us please continue the Allvid/RVU discussion in the thread: FCC to require All Vid IP video adapters from cable and maybe satellite

Cheers,
Tom


----------

