icp1 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Saint Louis, MO |
icp1
Premium Member
2009-Jun-29 10:52 am
yay!not that I really want my isp/cable controlling my dvr in any way, but come on, anyone with common sense knows there is no material difference between allowing a personal DVR and same features at the head end. | |
|
| 67845017 (banned) join:2000-12-17 Naperville, IL 1 edit |
67845017 (banned)
Member
2009-Jun-29 11:00 am
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. | |
|
| | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Jun-29 11:06 am
Re: yay!said by 67845017: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. | |
|
| | | bUU join:2007-05-10 Kissimmee, FL |
bUU
Member
2009-Jun-29 12:15 pm
Re: yay!So, why not just NOT SUBSCRIBE TO IT? This is only allowing it to be offered, it isn't REQUIRING YOU TO GET IT. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: yay!said by bUU: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. | |
|
| | | | | bUU join:2007-05-10 Kissimmee, FL |
bUU
Member
2009-Jun-29 1:27 pm
Re: yay!said by fifty nine: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. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: yay!said by bUU:said by fifty nine: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. | |
|
| | | | | | | bUU join:2007-05-10 Kissimmee, FL |
bUU
Member
2009-Jun-29 8:21 pm
Re: yay!Why insult people by claiming that they won't choose what's best for themselves? | |
|
| | | dennismurphyPut me on hold? I'll put YOU on hold Premium Member join:2002-11-19 Parsippany, NJ |
to FFH5
said by FFH5: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.) | |
|
| | | | |
Re: yay!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. | |
|
| | | | | dennismurphyPut me on hold? I'll put YOU on hold Premium Member join:2002-11-19 Parsippany, NJ |
Re: yay!said by fifty nine: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). | |
|
| | | | | vic102482 Premium Member join:2002-04-30 Upper Marlboro, MD 1 edit |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine: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. | |
|
| | | | | | bUU join:2007-05-10 Kissimmee, FL |
bUU
Member
2009-Jun-30 11:02 am
Re: yay!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. | |
|
| | | | TheWiseGuyDog And Butterfly MVM join:2002-07-04 East Stroudsburg, PA 1 edit
1 recommendation |
to dennismurphy
said by dennismurphy:said by FFH5: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/C ··· ngs,_Inc. | |
|
| | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to dennismurphy
said by dennismurphy:said by FFH5: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. | |
|
| | | 67845017 (banned) join:2000-12-17 Naperville, IL 1 edit |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by 67845017: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. | |
|
| | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Jun-29 12:22 pm
Re: yay!said by 67845017: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. | |
|
| | | | | 67845017 (banned) join:2000-12-17 Naperville, IL |
67845017 (banned)
Member
2009-Jun-29 12:49 pm
Re: yay!True. I'll agree with that. | |
|
| | | | JBT Premium Member join:2002-12-06 Odessa, FL |
to 67845017
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. | |
|
| | | | | 67845017 (banned) join:2000-12-17 Naperville, IL |
67845017 (banned)
Member
2009-Jun-29 12:51 pm
Re: yay!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. | |
|
| | | | | | DarkLogixTexan and Proud Premium Member join:2008-10-23 Baytown, TX |
Re: yay!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 | |
|
| aaronwt Premium Member join:2004-11-07 Woodbridge, VA Asus RT-AX89
|
to icp1
said by icp1:not that I really want my isp/cable controlling my dvr in any way, but come on, anyone with common sense knows there is no material difference between allowing a personal DVR and same features at the head end. I think originally they wanted to pool the content. So if one person recorded a program, basically that program would be used for everyone. Then I think they chnaged it so everone would have their individual recordings, which would be identical to having it stored locally, only you would have a delay in response like with VOD. | |
|
| | banditws6Shrinking Time and Distance Premium Member join:2001-08-18 Frisco, TX |
banditws6
Premium Member
2009-Jun-29 11:04 am
Re: yay!said by aaronwt:Then I think they chnaged it so everone would have their individual recordings, which would be identical to having it stored locally, only you would have a delay in response like with VOD. The delay is response is what kills my interest in this type of service. I'm nitpicky like that. | |
|
| | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2009-Jun-29 11:08 am
Re: yay!The delay is basically nothing. Why would that bug you? | |
|
| | | | djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV
2 recommendations |
djrobx
Premium Member
2009-Jun-29 11:15 am
Re: yay!The delay is far from nothing on most cable systems I've used VOD on. On Time Warner/Comcast VOD, it takes about a second for VOD to respond to a remote command.
But it can be better, and I assume a network DVR would be. U-verse VOD is nearly as good as the local DVR, so it can be done. | |
|
| | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2009-Jun-29 11:33 am
Re: yay!The on demand I have used with comcast loads basically instantly through the menus and has about a 1 to 2 second delay when you push play. I can't believe that you can't wait two seconds to start the video. | |
|
| | | | | | neufuse join:2006-12-06 James Creek, PA |
neufuse
Member
2009-Jun-29 11:36 am
Re: yay!1 to 2 second delay with play? ha... comcast here and the initial startup of content can take up to 3 minutes to start on VOD... and it's not just a box I have, everyone in the area has the same problem... and FF and RW have a lag of up to 5 seconds... and stopping a FF or RW can lag also to go back to play... it's almost not usable... and switched video is a pain in the butt too with its channel change lag.... | |
|
| | | | | | | geonaplolatidiots join:2005-12-14 Los Angeles, CA |
geonap
Member
2009-Jun-29 12:11 pm
Re: yay!charter does the same thing, delay sucks.
the point is that it's not that we dont want to wait, it's that a one to two second delay is mentally straining and annoying.
have you ever tried to hook up a midi keyboard to a computer with an interface that has latency? it's like playing piano and waiting a second to hear it, it's freaking annoying and it weakens you. | |
|
| | | | | | djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV
1 recommendation |
to r81984
No - You are missing the point. You are correct that 1-2 seconds of startup delay is inconsequential.
The conern is with the FF and RW functions. 1-2 seconds of delay makes stopping at the desired place very frustrating. | |
|
| | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5 to r81984
Premium Member
2009-Jun-29 11:23 am
to r81984
said by r81984:The delay is basically nothing. Why would that bug you? What he said: » Re: yay! | |
|
| | morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
to aaronwt
said by aaronwt:I think originally they wanted to pool the content. So if one person recorded a program, basically that program would be used for everyone. Then I think they chnaged it so everone would have their individual recordings, which would be identical to having it stored locally, only you would have a delay in response like with VOD. where's the advantage of having potentially 10,000k versions of the same recorded show? i just don't get this strategy. | |
|
| | | •••••
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to icp1
said by icp1:not that I really want my isp/cable controlling my dvr in any way, .... ... if you rent/lease one from the cable company, they already do. .. 100% of it, all the way down to the remote control, the ability to adjust the volume on the box rather than the TV, the time you can save a program for.. all of it is micro-configurable... they just don't. ...but come on, anyone with common sense knows there is no material difference between allowing a personal DVR and same features at the head end. You're correct. And, there are both pros and cons on either service. A few of the pluses I am looking forward to in the future is that if the power or cable goes out, my shows record.. if the box goes bad, so what.. and like VOD, if I want to watch it in any room, I can.. not just the one box that it's on. | |
|
| | •••• |
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to icp1
while i dislike a DVR being bound to the network, i like the outcome of this because i feel the entertainment industry doesn't have the right to hold the customer by the balls as the love so much to do. | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
to icp1
said by icp1:not that I really want my isp/cable controlling my dvr in any way, but come on, anyone with common sense knows there is no material difference between allowing a personal DVR and same features at the head end. Except on the headend, you can disable fast forward! | |
|
| | bUU join:2007-05-10 Kissimmee, FL |
bUU
Member
2009-Jun-30 6:07 am
Re: yay!Well, with tru2way, you'll be able to disable fast forward even with a stand-alone DVR. | |
|
| aaronwt Premium Member join:2004-11-07 Woodbridge, VA Asus RT-AX89
|
to icp1
How much bandwidth would this use. Aren't most cable systems bandwidth constrained? When I had Comcast, they couldn't keep up with the demand for VOD so you would sometimes just get a blank screen. What would happen if many people starting using a DVR function through the cable network? | |
|
| | bUU join:2007-05-10 Kissimmee, FL |
bUU
Member
2009-Jun-30 8:04 am
Re: yay!If they combine this with SDV, it will surely result in a net surplus of available bandwidth. | |
|
SmokeyI'd rather be skiing Premium Member join:2003-05-20 Wild West |
Smokey
Premium Member
2009-Jun-29 11:16 am
Good callI support the idea of networked DVR. I really like the idea of "primetime playback" or being able to pull a show that I missed for say, 24-48 hours after it's programing. If I set the show to be recorded, then normal access to it until I delete the show. This also allows the video to be moved over other streams, possible internet and mobile if those accounts are tied to the cable account.
It will be interesting to see what the MSO's come up with now that they have this ruling. | |
|
needforspeed59Cruise Ship Just Passing Through join:2001-05-02 La Place, LA |
Increased Storage?Will this mean I can save more programs for longer times? | |
|
danclan join:2005-11-01 Midlothian, VA |
Considering Congress and FCC haved carriers to decoupleencryption from the stb...there should be a vast market of 3rd party STB boxes for you the customer to choose from based on capacity, speed, interface, guide etc. and this head end option should be yet another option and carriers should be looking to get out of STB market...why cant they use smart card ala dish or directTV? Would vastly simplify things and make many lives easier.
Instead there are lawsuits still and your are, for practical concerns, locked in. Tivo is your only real choice and dont try to say that mythtv is a real alternative for Ma and Pa kettle...it aint and never will be...
If STBs were completely decoupled from carriers you could take yours anywhere to any cable co and plug it in and enjoy. There would be one less hook in your lip for you to stay... | |
|
| |
Re: Considering Congress and FCC haved carriers to decouplewhere will they get the bandwidth for this?
I don't think they have the room to have 100 copy's of the same show in HD all being stated 1-5 min a part for each other to 100 different people. | |
|
| | |
Ilovemyfios
Anon
2009-Jun-30 1:41 am
if ok'd, is Verizon next - both good & not so goodheres the thing.. from the viewers standpoint, a maybe win.. I like the idea.. I read somewhere that maybe Verizon might even consider it, that they are waiting to see the outcome from cablevision's case. I still like their home media dvr though, for $10/mo more it has much better functionality but its something to consider. Also, what if there is an outage, I think I can still watch my home media DVR. Now watch Verizon nix it for a network solution | |
|
|
|