dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4542
share rss forum feed

barje

join:2002-06-24
Red Bank, NJ

Cablevision getting rid of DVR's

link
»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080919/ap_···rk_dvr_3



e2727
Bklynguy

join:2001-10-30
Brooklyn, NY

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



matcarl
Premium
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY

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.



e2727
Bklynguy

join:2001-10-30
Brooklyn, NY

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


rayooo

join:2001-11-13
Budd Lake, NJ

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.


majortom1029

join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
kudos:1
reply to barje

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.



matcarl
Premium
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY

said by majortom1029:

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.


Cool6324

join:2007-01-26
Bronx, NY
reply to majortom1029

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



mab631
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Mastic Beach, NY

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.



sandman9r
Premium
join:2003-11-09
Bronx, NY
reply to barje

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


xirian
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Beacon, NY
kudos:1

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


majortom1029

join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
kudos:1
reply to matcarl

said by matcarl:

said by majortom1029:

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


limegrass69
Here's my Posting tag

join:2008-05-28

1 recommendation

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.



Jmartz

join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ
reply to xirian

said by xirian:

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


Cool6324

join:2007-01-26
Bronx, NY
reply to barje

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.


TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

said by Cool6324:

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."
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.

said by Cool6324:

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.
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:8080/isysna···_opn.pdf
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore.

xirian
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Beacon, NY
kudos:1
reply to Jmartz

said by Jmartz:

said by xirian:

You still need a box, its just the cheaper sa4200 boxes instead of an 8300.
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 didn't mean cheaper as in cheaper to you but rather cheaper to cablevision. Of course they'd never let you pay less.


Jmartz

join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ
reply to Cool6324

said by Cool6324:

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


Cool6324

join:2007-01-26
Bronx, NY

said by Jmartz:

said by Cool6324:

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

TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
reply to Jmartz

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.

said by Richard Bellamy :

One notable difference between the RS-DVR and most current-generation DVRs is that once a household has recorded a program with the RS-DVR, they can then play it back on any set-top box in the house.
In this one Rutledge says

The RS-DVR "makes every converter (set-top) a DVR. It's the perfect whole-house strategy," Rutledge said.
While 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.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore.

UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY
reply to barje

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.



Jmartz

join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ

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.



e2727
Bklynguy

join:2001-10-30
Brooklyn, NY

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


TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
reply to Jmartz

said by Jmartz:

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.
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 posted

said by Rutledge :

Cablevision, however, has not yet identified how it will package and price the RS-DVR when it debuts commercially sometime in early 2009.

Rutledge said Cablevision is considering a "variety of iterations. We're thinking through those issues right now.
So 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.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore.


Jmartz

join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ

1 recommendation

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.


regulus434

join:2008-05-06
New York, NY

1 recommendation

reply to barje

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.


WaitinginNH

join:2006-09-14
Westbury, NY
reply to barje

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.


blacknoi

join:2004-11-06
Stanhope, NJ

1 edit
reply to barje

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.



matcarl
Premium
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY

Hope you didn't pay too much for it



RickNY
Premium
join:2000-11-02
Farmingville, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
reply to Jmartz

said by Jmartz:

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.
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.