dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5075
share rss forum feed

Network Guy
Premium
join:2000-08-25
New York
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to rick0204

Re: Samsung boxes to be the new DVR

DVR+ is a joke, especially for the monthly $14.95 fee. Windows HTPC all the way.

RemyM

join:2005-02-14
Stamford, CT
kudos:1
said by Network Guy:

DVR+ is a joke, especially for the monthly $14.95 fee. Windows HTPC all the way.

It's $10.95 unless you're like me and keep your SA8300, then it's only $5.00

Network Guy
Premium
join:2000-08-25
New York
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Future Nine Corp..
·T-Mobile US
$5 per box? I forget, haven't paid that pesky fee for some time.

I get to pay $4 for two cable cards plus the bullshit $5 premium outlet fee, which in turn gets me three PC-connected TV's with two tuners on each.


IllIlIlllIll
EliteData
Premium
join:2003-07-06
Hampton Bays, NY
kudos:7
reply to rick0204
said by rick0204:

2 CV employees told me they are testing a new physical dvr service- not dvr +.

unless there is going to be a small QAM plant for each corp code, then there just isnt enough QAM frequencies available for DVR+.
i still dont see how there could possibly be enough QAM channels to operate DVR+ if 1,000 customers in one corp code area (like 7801) all started using their DVR+ service, there would be a "service temporarily unavailable" message displayed on the screen (think of when CV gave out the free VOD for customers and what happened).
unless the protocol for DVR+ doesnt use QAM and uses CV's walled garden intraLAN network....
--
Suffolk County NY Police Feed - »www.scpdny.com
PS3 Gaming Feed - »www.livestream.com/elitedata

RemyM

join:2005-02-14
Stamford, CT
kudos:1
reply to Network Guy
said by Network Guy:

$5 per box? I forget, haven't paid that pesky fee for some time.

I get to pay $4 for two cable cards plus the bullshit $5 premium outlet fee, which in turn gets me three PC-connected TV's with two tuners on each.

Nope $5 per house on top of the fee for the physical DVR. So I have six tuners to record on at once, (4 DVR+ and 2 SA8300) and can still get access to the interactive and on demand channels. Each option has its good and bad points.

milan22

join:2008-12-17
Newark, NJ
Advantage of a physical DVD is that when "cable" goes down(not the power), you can still access the DVR.

Physical multiroom DVR should be the standard. Cloud based option should be there too for customers who desire it. The draw would be a larger storage space capability for those going that route.


optimumtv

@myvzw.com
reply to rick0204
The Samsung boxes have an "esta" port on the back. Maybe cv is working on software that customers can punches an external hard drive with the Samsung boxes or maybe they are looking at (Samsung Dvr SMT-H3272)


optimumtv

@myvzw.com
reply to milan22
Maybe they are looking at Samsung DVR. SMT-H3272.


IllIlIlllIll
EliteData
Premium
join:2003-07-06
Hampton Bays, NY
kudos:7
said by optimumtv :

Maybe they are looking at Samsung DVR. SMT-H3272.

only TWC has this box at the moment.
SMT-H3272/TWC comes with a 320GB hard disk
--
Suffolk County NY Police Feed - »www.scpdny.com
PS3 Gaming Feed - »www.livestream.com/elitedata

frdrizzt

join:2008-05-03
Ronkonkoma, NY
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
reply to milan22
said by milan22:

Advantage of a physical DVD is that when "cable" goes down(not the power), you can still access the DVR.

Physical multiroom DVR should be the standard. Cloud based option should be there too for customers who desire it. The draw would be a larger storage space capability for those going that route.

Advantage for DVR+ is that when "cable" goes down (whether power or not), you can still record your scheduled recordings for DVR+ while the service is unavailable.

said by TheWiseGuy:

said by frdrizzt:

I'm talking step backwards in terms of corporate view (money spent and years of legal fighting up to the supreme court to so quickly plan a replacement), not any pros & cons of hardware & software DVR.

Unless the cost benefit analysis has changed. They did the DVR+ because they analyzed it and decided it would cost less. If they have found costs are greater then expected to run the service or that the cost of the physical DVR has gone down or even that they believe they are losing revenue without a physical DVR then as a corporation they must change their strategy.

To me, the logical answer is that purchasing & maintaining additional DVR equipment at each customer premise, scheduling installs & uninstalls of such equipment, and the requirement of physical replacement to increase service levels (for example, they can set the DVR+ limit to 6 streams and double the storage space overnight without needing to go to single customer homes just doing upgrades in the head end). I'm sure there are a lot of costs on both sides that I wouldn't think of in a full analysis (that's why it's not my job to figure it out!) but I wouldn't imagine a remote storage option being significantly more expensive than multiple local storage options.

All that being said, I don't plan on swapping my 8300 for DVR+ for a number of reasons (primarily, that I only have 1 HD TV and if I wanted to use it for multi-room I would need to make SD recordings).


jaa
Premium
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vonage
·Optimum Online
reply to rick0204
Slightly OT. If the cable system can handle DVR+ with a unique stream going to every single cable box on a node, why do we need to get content from the cable company at all? Why can't each box just stream directly from the content provider - live and recorded programming?
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists.

TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:3
reply to frdrizzt
said by frdrizzt:

To me, the logical answer is that purchasing & maintaining additional DVR equipment at each customer premise, scheduling installs & uninstalls of such equipment, and the requirement of physical replacement to increase service levels (for example, they can set the DVR+ limit to 6 streams and double the storage space overnight without needing to go to single customer homes just doing upgrades in the head end). I'm sure there are a lot of costs on both sides that I wouldn't think of in a full analysis (that's why it's not my job to figure it out!) but I wouldn't imagine a remote storage option being significantly more expensive than multiple local storage options.

That certainly was CV's stated logic when they explained why they wanted and were going to do the remote storage DVR.

Still they have to install and maintain the normal cable box instead of a DVR box. I'm not really sure that adding a DVR makes the average service costs much higher. They have to maintain and debug a much more complicated system with high end disk arrays at each headend. The hourly cost for the tech/engineers that do that must be quite a bit higher than that of a field tech. Certainly if they intended to do a lot of upgrading of DVRs the ability to do it centrally would help but then again they have had the same DVR for years. Also many people who have a DVR actually just take it in and exchange it when there is a drive problem reducing the cost of maintaining those DVRs.

There is also the opportunity cost that it takes bandwidth which could be used for other services. The remote DVR does not have the same appeal to many people since it responds slower to the user so there is an opportunity cost of not having a product that some users want. Also DVR prices probably have dropped and having the remote DVR probably gave them purchasing leverage.

I'm not saying the Cost Benefit analysis has changed or that they have decided to go with the physical DVR. I'm simply pointing out some of the possible ways that the analysis could have changed. Obviously they should have known the rate of failure of the DVR versus the regular box, how many more tech visits are required with a physical DVR. What they might not have known was the amount of support and debugging the remote DVR would require. Also if the price of the DVR in the home declines it can easily change the calculation. Lastly they may have decided they need to offer more services due to the competition with FIOS and therefore felt the bandwidth requirement for the DVR was not the best use of those channels, or that they needed an in home DVR to compete.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore.

RemyM

join:2005-02-14
Stamford, CT
kudos:1
reply to frdrizzt
said by frdrizzt:

All that being said, I don't plan on swapping my 8300 for DVR+ for a number of reasons (primarily, that I only have 1 HD TV and if I wanted to use it for multi-room I would need to make SD recordings).

You can schedule DVR+ to make both SD and HD recordings of the same show now. Also if you keep paying for your SA8300 they only charge you $5 for DVR+. You could easily try it for that price since it's just a phone call to activate or deactivate,

frdrizzt

join:2008-05-03
Ronkonkoma, NY
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
said by RemyM:

said by frdrizzt:

All that being said, I don't plan on swapping my 8300 for DVR+ for a number of reasons (primarily, that I only have 1 HD TV and if I wanted to use it for multi-room I would need to make SD recordings).

You can schedule DVR+ to make both SD and HD recordings of the same show now. Also if you keep paying for your SA8300 they only charge you $5 for DVR+. You could easily try it for that price since it's just a phone call to activate or deactivate,

Yeah, I could do that; I didn't think of that. but I rarely watch TV on the SD TV anyway (because really, who wants to watch SD?). The inability to rewind live TV without either scheduling the program for recording or pausing live TV. The 4 recording streams is nice but I rarely record more than 1 thing anyway. I'll re-evaluate at some point next year when I add another HD TV to the mix, though I don't plan on carrying both physical & network DVR if I switch. I've used DVR+ off other accounts, and there have definitely been improvements, but I'm happy with what I have at the moment.


sandman9r
Premium
join:2003-11-09
Bronx, NY
reply to rick0204
To those who still have their SA8300: keep it! We're the lucky ones. DVR+ is simply not as fast and you lose certain bells & whistles.

dougef

join:2004-08-27
Wilton, CT
I would like to know when additional storage space on DVR+ will be available.