dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
962
share rss forum feed


JSY
Premium
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY

Lukewarm

My guess is that there will still be a cable box - that they just meant there would be no need for a hard drive box for the consumer.

I'm lukewarm about it all because if it's anywhere as responsive as VOD on TWC - where FF, RW, etc. response times are not immediate - then I am not sure if the experience would be the same. A reduction or elimination of a DVR fee would make it easier to adapt.


DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
kudos:2
Ya, good point. Response times are like in the 5+ Second range. Would make it really annoying.


ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
reply to JSY
What I don't like about Network DVR (potentially):

- Time limit restrictions on how long I can keep shows. I like to keep them as long as I want and watch them whenever I please.
- Inability to fast forward commercials. This is a big one for me.
- You'll still be charged a box rental fee.
- You'll still be charged a DVR service fee (and likely a higher one to cover the cost of bandwith).
- Possible increased charges for storing HD content.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
what bandwidth? it would be treated as VOD. It wouldnt use much of anything.

Chances are they would just record the show once and share it among people who wanted to watch it and have most likely a 3 week viewing time for that item. I don't see them storing TV shows and movies for ever.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD:

What I don't like about Network DVR (potentially):

- Time limit restrictions on how long I can keep shows. I
like to keep them as long as I want and watch them whenever I please.
They already have the ability to limit the time on your DVR box.
- Inability to fast forward commercials. This is a big one for me.
I don't think this has been discussed in the service already available.. again, they could do this now if they wanted. The consumer could actually avoid this by purchasing their own DVR.

- You'll still be charged a box rental fee.
Sure, you will... but it won't be a DVR box rental fee mostly if you wanted to have a DVR on each set, you'd avoid it all together. Some people are paying huge fees to have DVRs on multiple televisions now - this would be a savings.

- You'll still be charged a DVR service fee (and likely a higher one to cover the cost of bandwith).
The model already out there doesn't support that theory. But who knows.

- Possible increased charges for storing HD content.
Doubt it.. it's based on storage space, period.

Here are some positives - and there ARE some.

- You can access content and record content from any standard box in the home.

- Power goes out, your content is still recorded.

- Less hardware in the home to go bad. Everyone complains about how bad the DVR is and how they have to stay home for a tech, this would eliminate the weak spot.

- People complain about the higher power used by the DVR.. this eliminates it.

- If your hardware based DVR fails, you no longer lose your content.

- The potential for purchasing more recording space if you want more space instead of waiting for a DVR that offers a larger HDD.

- You'd be guaranteed that your recording will work no matter what your cable line quality is like as it's recorded at the head end.

- Many systems require digital service in order to have DVR service.. this would remove that requirement.

There are more...

.. and yes, I DO see that there are some down sides as well. For one, I do not like the fact there is such latency in the controls. Further, it would be nice if there was a jump function, including in VOD services, where you could tell the server to "jump" to a certain minute/time of the program.

Who knows... the bottom line is, however, that there is still Tivo service. Considering the amount of money that Comcast, for example, has put into Tivo already, I doubt the box will go away anytime soon. I'm guessing that the network based DVR will be an option. Besides, there IS a major benefit to going network based to the company and that's the DVR really is not a money maker anyway.. it's a retention tool for the customer against dish. With the cost of the box, the monthly revenue they receive from them, and the cost to SERVICE these boxes that have so many problems (as so many report) they don't really make money on the DVR.

Personally, if done right, I see this as a win win.


ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
Your views are definitely your own my friend. You're giving the cable co's too much credit, assuming their models are designed to be fair to the consumer. You have to think more realistically...think "business".

said by fiberguy:

They already have the ability to limit the time on your DVR box.
But they don't. Do you know why? Because then DVR becomes useless. They don't want to lose that cash cow. Going to a network system gives them an excuse by saying "well, we don't have enough storage space to keep things indefinitely...". That excuse doesn't fly in the current system, because the shows sit on a hard drive in your box, for as long as you please. If they were to start deleting regular TV shows after a period, there'd be a mass exodus. I'm already not pleased about DirecTV and HD PPVs being deleted after a couple of days.

said by fiberguy:

I don't think this has been discussed in the service already available.. again, they could do this now if they wanted. The consumer could actually avoid this by purchasing their own DVR.
My understanding is that network DVR would work similar to what digital TV did back in the 90's...make your own boxes obsolete and force you to lease/buy whatever hardware the cable co's are pitching. Especially if they make it to where Tivo becomes a paperweight.

said by fiberguy:

Sure, you will... but it won't be a DVR box rental fee mostly if you wanted to have a DVR on each set, you'd avoid it all together. Some people are paying huge fees to have DVRs on multiple televisions now - this would be a savings.
You missed my point. It's a service that works the same way as broadcast. Why should I be charged any extra above broadcast fees regardless of the number of TVs using it? I don't even agree with the current DVR fee layout, because it's the box doing the recording; why should I have to pay for permission to record a TV show? There should be a charge for the hardware and nothing else.

said by fiberguy:

The model already out there doesn't support that theory. But who knows.
Again, you're thinking pro-consumer; you have to break that. They'll charge you because they can, not because it's logical. Call it a "Digital Media Retention Fee".

said by fiberguy:

Doubt it.. it's based on storage space, period.
Which the cable co's will claim costs them $5/MB and that each TV show takes up 1 GB plus the effort to deliver to each box, so $5,000 per show split amongst whoever watches that show. Multipled by however many shows are recorded, add on the shows nobody watches but they store anyway, and you're in short order towards an extra $30/month to have the ability to watch DVR'd TV shows that you would never watch.


JSY
Premium
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY
said by ReVeLaTeD:

Your views are definitely your own my friend. You're giving the cable co's too much credit, assuming their models are designed to be fair to the consumer. You have to think more realistically...think "business".
That is precisely what I was thinking when I read that post. If there is a cable company that can be entrusted to even consider those relevant points, I haven't seen it.


JSY
Premium
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY
reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:

what bandwidth? it would be treated as VOD. It wouldnt use much of anything.

Chances are they would just record the show once and share it among people who wanted to watch it and have most likely a 3 week viewing time for that item. I don't see them storing TV shows and movies for ever.
I think he was speaking about the potential bandwidth required by the cable co to deliver hundreds of thousands+ of different programming over their lines simultaneously. People aren't all watching the same thing at the same time and the impact would be greater than VOD since there would be a hell of a lot more people using it than VOD.

And in reference to people storing shows and movies forever - you must not know people with TiVos... Personally I had Birds of Prey on my TiVo until it came out on DVD and I think that was about 5 or 6 years ago?

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to JSY
I don't know what to say to you that hasn't already been said. I could reply with a 10 paragraph message to explain it in various ways, but the bottom line is 1) you don't know - and it's true what I said.. there is much of this that can already be done. 2) Making money is not necessarily a bad thing. To say "I want it provided free" is not going to fly. NOTHING is free even if it's "Free"... I mean, come one.. Free VOD.. right? People have have already stated that it's not free...

I honestly don't have the energy to go up against someone who, right off the bat, is knocking everything down so negatively with out having any facts to base their statements on.. it's just impossible.

I will say this.. if cable is just so bad.. then why in the world do you have or subscribe to the service? If you know in advance they are so bad - then why do business with them..

I remain to say that cable is a luxury, not a right.


ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
Come on now. I don't disagree with anything you said. In fact I think they're very good ideas and if I had my way, you'd be running Cox Communications.

All I'm saying is, you know as well as everyone on this board that what you're pitching is too consumer friendly, and the cable companies will do everything in their power to charge you for everything, even that which is not logical.

I'm not calling them "evil" and I don't demand "free". If you read my initial post, all I said was I don't like network DVR because of limitations that the cable companies would likely employ to fatten their pocket. I don't like paying a fee to record TV, no. But that's because it's silly. I could theoretically output video to my computer and record it for free, so why should a DVR be any different? It's not a logical charge.

Going network just exacerbates the problem, because then you take away the box (read: rental fee), you take away the cost of delivery beyond standard broadcasting, and you take away the troubleshooting. So what's left to be charged?

Don't misunderstand my post as an attack. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I like your ideas; I just know that big cable wouldn't even entertain the notion of making it an easy and convenient service. Look at CableCARDs.