OptimumOnline → Cablevision getting rid of DVR's

link
»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2008 ··· rk_dvr_3

I just hope we can still have the option of using the DVR, if we don't like how ths new service will work,hope it won't be like there VOD service so slow

I don't understand how they could get rid of physical DVR's. How would you be able to control live TV, like rewind and pause. Doesn't the network DVR only have recording capability? Plus you won't have dual tuners.

That is a good point i never even thought of the dual tuners part, i hope they don't get rid things like that

they would theoretically be able to offer the ability to record greater than 2 simultaneous channels if they wanted since no home-based tuners would be required.

I dont know why people even use dvrs from the cable,satellite,and phone companies.

I use vista media center and it does things that dvrs dont. Once I record a show I can burn it to dvd, put it on my zune to watch later and things like that.

I can stream it to other pc's in the house and I dont pay $9.99 a month to do it.

Because a lot of people don't want to watch movies they recorded on their PC's. I have a big screen TV for that.

There are not many solutions to easily grab hd content on MCE.

also people don't have pc in their living room and don't want there tv to crash while they watch there fav show. i have my hd tv right next to my desk i still got a 8300hd to make my life simple and not take up system resources while i work.

I still don't get how this can be accomplished without some type of box.

You still need a box, its just the cheaper sa4200 boxes instead of an 8300.

You do know you can connect your comp to your tv via ,component or hdmi cables right?

I think most folks around here know that you can connect your computer to your TV, but I don't think the typical user knows or wants to be bothered with doing such a thing. I think the "average Joe" just wants to turn on their TV and start watching.

It will not be any cheaper. Rutledge already said that since it will have the same functionality as the 8300, they will probably charge $9.95/month for the service. What remains to be seen is if the service will apply to all boxes on your account, or if you'll have to sign up each box individually at 10 bucks a piece, and will those boxes be able to access the recordings of other boxes on your account.

Should be very interesting to see how it all shakes down. But price wise, it's going to be the same price.

I think this line is bogus:

"Subscribers will have to initiate the recording of shows, not Cablevision; and the stored programs will have to be unique to each viewer and not set aside for all subscribers."

What is the point of having 50,000 copies of a program when you can have one? I understand the regulation may prevent them from just having one copy.

I also don't see a pause function on live television. The buffer would be huge if each subscriber has to have a unique buffer.

The only positive I do see if that if a subscribers box is damaged, they won't have to lose recordings.

This will be interesting. I for one will have a bill that is $9.95 cheaper when this rolls out.

Given that their victory in court, which allows them to go ahead, was based on the copies being unique for each subscriber they need to do this to avoid copyright infringement.If you press the record button while watching a show it will record the rest of the show but not record the previous portion. The description of the system is fairly thorough in the the court decision.

»www.ca2.uscourts.gov:808 ··· _opn.pdf

I didn't mean cheaper as in cheaper to you but rather cheaper to cablevision. Of course they'd never let you pay less.

How is it going to be cheaper? You have a box rental ($7) and a $9.95 charge for the service... which is exactly what your paying now...

If you have two DVR's and they apply this remote dvr service to all the boxes on your account, then you'll save money by paying the DVR fee only once, but somehow I don't think that's going to happen. I have a feeling you're going to have to pay 7 bucks for each box you enable the service on, and those boxes will probably not have access to the recordings initiated by the other box even though they are on your account. But reading the tea leaves based on Rutledge's comments so far, it seems their business model will remain a per-box fee based service, and not a per-account fee like what DirecTV has. Just another way for them to make more money. No huge upfront costs for them to buy the hardware DVR's... but they continue charging the same price. -- If they do that, I may just buy some Cablevision stock, because they are going to rack in the cash big time.

Cheaper as in I will be looking for alternate solutions...

While I am not certain the service will allow you to receive a RS-DVR on all the boxes a couple of articles seem to indicate it may. According to this article it would seem likely.In this one Rutledge saysWhile it certainly is possible that they could charge 9.99/set or 9.99/house, there are other possibilities such as 9.99 for the first and an additional but lessor charge, either per box or for all additional boxes.

This is going nowhere anytime soon. Cablevision is announcing a deployment schedule to get the studios to appeal the ruling that allowed for this to go forward. They'll be an appeal and injunction sought by the studios prior to Cablevision actually deploying this. If the injunction is not allowed then Cablevision can go ahead as planned until the court overturns the lower court's ruling, if the studios are successful. Definitely going to be interesting to see how this all plays out in the courts.

I'll be shocked if they don't charge for each converter that has the service. People are willing to spend the money on having multiple DVR's from Cablevision on their account right now... I guess we will find out in due time.

I just hope we can still control live TV, like we have now

A large part will depend on whether they see it as an added feature, in their competition with Verizon and Satellite or as an added revenue producer.

As with Wi-Fi, which at least at this point they seem to be using as a competitive advantage, they could decide from a business prospective adding services will keep enough users to offset any revenue they would gain by charging the maximum the market will bear for that service.

Another consideration would need to be, while there are people who are willing to pay 9.99 for each room now, would you increase the revenue and earnings, if you can get X percent of users who are not willing to pay 9.99 now but would be willing to pay $9.99 for a multi-room DVR. While there are subscribers who are willing to pay for more then 1 DVR for the house, unless you know how many there are now, it is hard to know whether that revenue is significant. You would need to look at how mmuch revenue that you lose/gain at 9.99/house versus 9.99/box.

Also when 2-way cable card comes out you will need to compete with in home generic DVRs. Again multi-room offers a competitive advantage there. I don't think it is a simple decision.

Not surprising that Rutledge said in the second link I postedSo while you may turn out to be right and they may charge for every room, I don't think it is a cut and dry decision.

The M-Cards are two way, they just aren't enabled yet. The tech who installed it said that the cards have options for IP addressing and if they were ever to be given an IP, then they could communicate with the head ends.

I would think it would be $9.95 for the service with the base storage (100hrs/24hr HD) to be added to by $9.95 for more storage...who knows though.

I dont like the idea. It will be like the VOD which stinks. I'd rather have the shows stored at my home rather than remotely.

So I set my parents up with a eSATA 500GB drive over a year ago.

How does that same functionality work in this new scenario? I cannot add an external drive to a virtual server space on cablevisions end...

And I don't want them to have to pay a montly lease fee for extra storage on cablevisions side. An eSATA solution is a one time fee.

Hope you didn't pay too much for it

All CableCards are capable of two-way communications, both S-cards and M-cards.. The hardware, however, does not contain any type of mechanism for communicating back to the headend (i.e. a DOCSIS or DAVIC device). This is why Tivo needs to rely on the external tuning resolver for SDV. To my knowledge, CableLabs has not licensed two-way communication to any non-MSO supplied device.