l2jn4 ljalkd
@swbell.net
| reply to calvoiper
Re: What about duplication?
said by calvoiper  :Curious--does the box at the head-end actually store multiple copies of the same content for multiple users? If it "combines" those versions, there might be a different legal interpretation than if it actually segments out each users separate copy.... calvoiper The Cablevision ruling requires an individual copy for each subscriber. This solution isn't going to be any cheaper than putting DVR in each house, but is easier to manage and add as a service to exisitng subscribers. |
|
DGLewis
join:2006-03-10
Freehold, NJ
| A honkin' big RAID server farm has a significantly lower cost per bit for storage than does a million individual DVR set-top boxes.
Plus, you can sell a customer DVR without having to ship them a new box, and as others have pointed out, all the maintenance and repair is centralized at the headend, dramatically lowering OpEx.
They can also upsell additional storage space, getting the revenue that's currently going to E-SATA disk manufacturers (and growing the market, because even something as simple as buying an E-SATA disk and plugging it into the back of the STB isn't as simple as having a pop-up on the screen that says, "Your storage space is 90% full. Please delete some recordings, or press to purchase additional storage space.") |
|
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| Yeah but can't they just use a file system that is intelligent enough to write exactly duplicated data only once, and store a pointer record so that it appears as 500 copies of the same file? I've read a couple articles about file systems doing this now.
As long as that is handled on low enough a level, I imagine they could get away with it. |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | Why would they even bother? I'm sure they could just record everything 24/7. No need for duplicate anything. |
|
