icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | yay!
not that I really want my isp/cable controlling my dvr in any way, but come on, anyone with common sense knows there is no material difference between allowing a personal DVR and same features at the head end. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | I agree. I can't figure out why there's so much consumer (i.e. DSLR member) backlash to this idea.
As for the ruling, it's good for the fact that it at least lessens the industry's ultra-tight reins on content. Maybe this leaves a little crack in the doorway for other distribution systems that won't get squashed. Not sure it's very significant to consumers otherwise. |
|
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to icp1
said by icp1  :not that I really want my isp/cable controlling my dvr in any way, but come on, anyone with common sense knows there is no material difference between allowing a personal DVR and same features at the head end. I think originally they wanted to pool the content. So if one person recorded a program, basically that program would be used for everyone. Then I think they chnaged it so everone would have their individual recordings, which would be identical to having it stored locally, only you would have a delay in response like with VOD. |
|
banditws6
Shrinking Time and Distance
join:2001-08-18
Naples, FL
·Comcast
| said by aaronwt :Then I think they chnaged it so everone would have their individual recordings, which would be identical to having it stored locally, only you would have a delay in response like with VOD. The delay is response is what kills my interest in this type of service. I'm nitpicky like that.
--
"I'll follow the law until it's just stupid." -Ted Nugent |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Goober
said by Goober :I agree. I can't figure out why there's so much consumer (i.e. DSLR member) backlash to this idea. How about because it will be only marginally cheaper than a physical DVR in the home, but at the same time much less responsive to rewind and fast forward remote control commands. It also lends itself to experiments preventing the fast forwarding thru commercials. Despite the Appeals Court ruling, pressure on Cablevision by the entertainment industry to prevent skipping thru commercials will be considerable and easier to try out with a Network DVR.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL | reply to banditws6
The delay is basically nothing. Why would that bug you? |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| The delay is far from nothing on most cable systems I've used VOD on. On Time Warner/Comcast VOD, it takes about a second for VOD to respond to a remote command.
But it can be better, and I assume a network DVR would be. U-verse VOD is nearly as good as the local DVR, so it can be done.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
Smokey
Even drunk on a bet ya make it to Canada
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Va Beach
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Good call
I support the idea of networked DVR. I really like the idea of "primetime playback" or being able to pull a show that I missed for say, 24-48 hours after it's programing. If I set the show to be recorded, then normal access to it until I delete the show. This also allows the video to be moved over other streams, possible internet and mobile if those accounts are tied to the cable account.
It will be interesting to see what the MSO's come up with now that they have this ruling.
--
Para Bellum!! |
|
needforspeed59
Cruise Ship Just Passing Through
join:2001-05-02
Glendale, AZ | Increased Storage?
Will this mean I can save more programs for longer times?
--
Great success! High five! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to r81984
Re: yay!
said by r81984 :The delay is basically nothing. Why would that bug you? What he said:
»Re: yay!
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
·magicjack.com
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to djrobx
The on demand I have used with comcast loads basically instantly through the menus and has about a 1 to 2 second delay when you push play. I can't believe that you can't wait two seconds to start the video.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
neufuse
join:2006-12-06
Indiana, PA
·Comcast
| 1 to 2 second delay with play? ha... comcast here and the initial startup of content can take up to 3 minutes to start on VOD... and it's not just a box I have, everyone in the area has the same problem... and FF and RW have a lag of up to 5 seconds... and stopping a FF or RW can lag also to go back to play... it's almost not usable... and switched video is a pain in the butt too with its channel change lag.... |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to aaronwt
said by aaronwt :I think originally they wanted to pool the content. So if one person recorded a program, basically that program would be used for everyone. Then I think they chnaged it so everone would have their individual recordings, which would be identical to having it stored locally, only you would have a delay in response like with VOD. where's the advantage of having potentially 10,000k versions of the same recorded show? i just don't get this strategy. |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| said by morbo :where's the advantage of having potentially 10,000k versions of the same recorded show? i just don't get this strategy. Who says they will store that many? They may only store 1 eventually, and spool it out to memory and then to the customer. Think about it. If TV goes all digitial content schedules could go completely out the window and you could watch anything you want whenever you want using the methods mentioned here. It wouldbe like watching every show "On Demand". Of course you will be spoon fed the commercials but what price is that to pay for content I can watch whenever I want for just s small fee per program...ooops did I let the cat out of the bag?
--
Fed Up With Stupidity?
Patentlystupid.com |
|
geonap
lolatidiots
join:2005-12-14
Glendale, CA
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to neufuse
charter does the same thing, delay sucks.
the point is that it's not that we dont want to wait, it's that a one to two second delay is mentally straining and annoying.
have you ever tried to hook up a midi keyboard to a computer with an interface that has latency? it's like playing piano and waiting a second to hear it, it's freaking annoying and it weakens you. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to TKJunkMail
So, why not just NOT SUBSCRIBE TO IT? This is only allowing it to be offered, it isn't REQUIRING YOU TO GET IT. |
|
dennismurphy
Put me on hold? I'll put YOU on hold
Premium
join:2002-11-19
Parsippany, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :How about because it will be only marginally cheaper than a physical DVR in the home, but at the same time much less responsive to rewind and fast forward remote control commands. It also lends itself to experiments preventing the fast forwarding thru commercials. Despite the Appeals Court ruling, pressure on Cablevision by the entertainment industry to prevent skipping thru commercials will be considerable and easier to try out with a Network DVR. Disagree on the "marginally" cheaper - it's substantial.
think about the potential for deduplicating data - you only keep ONE copy of each program centrally, instead of hundreds of thousands distributed all over the place.
This is a major win for consumers:
a) Lower cost - let's say the supplier price for hard disks is $35. $35 x (figure) 200,000 DVR's in CV territory (I bet the number's a lot higher, actually) = $7m in savings that can (not necessarily will be) passed on to the consumer.
b) Higher reliability - CV can use a mid-tier disk array with some variety of protection (be it RAID, replication, etc.) that protect against failure. In the current model, if a disk fails, all of a consumer's recordings are lost.
c) More availability - say you forget to schedule a show to record. It's in the CV archive anyway, so why can't you "record" it after the fact?
Lots of potential here. LOTS. This can change the way we watch TV as we know it (as TiVo did for us 10 years ago.) |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by Goober :I agree. I can't figure out why there's so much consumer (i.e. DSLR member) backlash to this idea. How about because it will be only marginally cheaper than a physical DVR in the home, but at the same time much less responsive to rewind and fast forward remote control commands. It also lends itself to experiments preventing the fast forwarding thru commercials. Despite the Appeals Court ruling, pressure on Cablevision by the entertainment industry to prevent skipping thru commercials will be considerable and easier to try out with a Network DVR. I suppose the delay thing is variable between systems. I never found VOD to be particularly annoying in its response time. It's not instant, but I got used to it and it never bothered me.
They can easily push firmware to the DVR to stop commercial skipping. That's not even a credible argument. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Goober :They can easily push firmware to the DVR to stop commercial skipping. That's not even a credible argument. Yes they can. But that is much more disruptive than trying it out with a network based DVR.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
dennismurphy
Put me on hold? I'll put YOU on hold
Premium
join:2002-11-19
Parsippany, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :said by aaronwt :I think originally they wanted to pool the content. So if one person recorded a program, basically that program would be used for everyone. Then I think they chnaged it so everone would have their individual recordings, which would be identical to having it stored locally, only you would have a delay in response like with VOD. where's the advantage of having potentially 10,000k versions of the same recorded show? i just don't get this strategy. Deduplication ... each customer can have their own "set" of recorded shows, but they can basically be pointers back to the centrally archived version of it.
Cool stuff. |
|
