Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | reply to icp1
Re: yay!
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. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| 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 |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | 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 |
|
jesseb_66
join:2002-12-06
Tucson, AZ
| reply to Goober
I've only used vod in VT with Adelphia and now Comcast. It is very slow but getting better. When it was first rolled out it took a good 2 minutes to load the menu. Also with no indicator if it was working or not it was a bare. Its down to seconds now but still feels pretty sluggish. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
 ·PenTeleData
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to bicker
said by bicker :So, why not just NOT SUBSCRIBE TO IT? This is only allowing it to be offered, it isn't REQUIRING YOU TO GET IT. The problem is that if it catches on, then regular standalone DVRs may die off.
Unless of course the specter preventing FFing rears its ugly head before actual standalone DVRs die off. That may spook some people into shying away from the network DVR. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to dennismurphy
There is also great potential for:
- Preventing commercial skipping
- Inserting alternate and possibly longer ads every time you watch (would require cooperation of the content producer possibly)
quote:
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.
My most recent quote on SAN storage the other day for video was over $80,000 for about 12TB, and that is actually the lower end using SATA drives instead of fiber channel. It's also cheaper than what a vendor like EMC would charge you.
Suffice to say that enterprise storage is not going to be $35 for a 1TB disk. These are not desktop drives that you buy from Fry's. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to TKJunkMail
True. I'll agree with that. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to jesseb_66
Early VOD certainly was worse than the present systems. Anything that isn't instant won't be as satisfying. But, other than for skipping commercials, we rarely use the remote. I still think it's just a matter of getting used to it. |
|
dennismurphy
Put me on hold? I'll put YOU on hold
Premium
join:2002-11-19
Parsippany, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to Eat Me
said by Eat Me :My most recent quote on SAN storage the other day for video was over $80,000 for about 12TB, and that is actually the lower end using SATA drives instead of fiber channel. It's also cheaper than what a vendor like EMC would charge you. Suffice to say that enterprise storage is not going to be $35 for a 1TB disk. These are not desktop drives that you buy from Fry's. Of course we're talking enterprise storage ... very different. But the prices are continuing to fall ... Even still, using some dedupe and content compression (go check out ocarina networks), you can achieve economies of scale ...
(I work in enterprise storage, so I know a bit about it). |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to Eat Me
said by Eat Me :The problem is that if it catches on, then regular standalone DVRs may die off. So, in other words, if lots of customers like this option better, then other options may not be offered as much. Sorry, I cannot get too concerned about that. Let's respect our fellows enough to let them decide what's best for them, instead of wishing to withhold from them the options that they themselves my prefer. |
|
TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
Yonkers, NY
1 edit | reply to dennismurphy
said by dennismurphy :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. I am fairly certain you can not. I believe the original ruling was very specific and it included how the Network DVR would work, especially as far as buffering/caching and storage.
From the appeal decision
"If a customer has requested a particular program, the data for that program move from the primary buffer into a secondary buffer, and then onto a portion of one of the hard disks allocated to that customer. As new data flow into the primary buffer, they overwrite a corresponding quantity of data already on the buffer."
»en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cartoon_N···ngs,_Inc.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to dennismurphy
said by dennismurphy :said by TKJunkMail :How about because it will be only marginally cheaper than a physical DVR in the home Disagree on the "marginally" cheaper - it's substantial. Costwise for the provider, yes. But I was referring to the customer. They won't be charging the customer much less than they do for in-home DVRs.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | reply to Goober
Well VOD on DTV is just about instant
its more of a download than a stream so once its on your box you can ff and rewind just as fast as if you had recorded it off the normal channel |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to bicker
said by bicker :said by Eat Me :The problem is that if it catches on, then regular standalone DVRs may die off. So, in other words, if lots of customers like this option better, then other options may not be offered as much. Sorry, I cannot get too concerned about that. Let's respect our fellows enough to let them decide what's best for them, instead of wishing to withhold from them the options that they themselves my prefer. It's not a matter of what's best for them. It's a matter of who wins the marketing wars. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Why insult people by claiming that they won't choose what's best for themselves? |
|
vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
1 edit | reply to Eat Me
said by Eat Me :There is also great potential for: - Preventing commercial skipping If you can stream media to your TV, then you will always be able to DVR it, and thus skip commercials.
Myth TV and other type DVRs, will DVR an OTA signal for instance.
I do see this as an issue though. And whats worse, even if Cablevision allows you to skip, the media companies may sue for *allowing* the skipping of commercials. TIVO was sued for adding in the 30 second jump.
But again, no one can stop you from hooking up your own media center and you will always have control of that.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| Actually, I don't believe TiVo has ever been sued for 30-second skip. It is not a documented feature. ReplayTV, an early TiVo competitor, was sued for its commercial-skipping capability, though. Perhaps that's what you're recalling.
Regardless, the point is well-founded: Promoting a feature that specifically facilitates commercial avoidance is not going to go unopposed. |
|
