dslreports logo
 story category
The Network DVR Lives!
Cablevision beats back entertainment industry on appeal

Cable operators have long dreamed offer offering "networked DVRs," or the storage of video content at the network head end, eliminating the need for a consumer-side set top box entirely. Cablevision conducted a 1,000 person trial of a network DVR service in 2006 that worked essentially the same way as a traditional DVR -- except that 80 hours of video content were stored on Cablevision servers. Time Warner Cable also explored such a system, with the initial trial supposedly receiving rave reviews.

We appreciate the Court’s perspective that, from the standpoint of existing copyright law, remote-storage DVRs are the same as the traditional DVRs that are in use today,”
-Cablevision COO Tom Rutledge
However, Cablevision was sued by the entertainment industry, who claimed the system violated broadcast and copyright laws. Last year, a Federal judge ruled against Cablevision, preventing Cablevision from broader deployment. In an interesting turn of events, today an appeals court overturned that ruling, and lifted the ban on Cablevision's use of the system pending appeal.
quote:
"This is a tremendous victory for consumers, which will allow us to make DVRs available to many more people, faster and less expensively than would otherwise be possible," Tom Rutledge, Cablevision's chief operating officer, said in a statement. "We appreciate the Court's perspective that, from the standpoint of existing copyright law, remote-storage DVRs are the same as the traditional DVRs that are in use today," he said.
The threat of lawsuit had cable operators deploying far less interesting variants. For instance, Time Warner Cable scrapped their own networked DVR project and instead started offering "Start Over," a system that allows users to (obviously) start programs over if they tune in late, but does not let them skip advertisements. The new ruling, should it stand, could make your home entertainment options vastly more interesting the next few years.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

3 edits

FFH5

Premium Member

Will it be cheaper than renting a DVR from cable company

This might be interesting depending on what they charge per month for the service. A DVR can run anywhere from $10 to $20 per month for each DVR from a cable company. But a hosted server could be used from multiple TVs without having a DVR on each TV.

It would also depend on whether they allow fast forwarding thru commercials or not. A service that doesn't do that would be pretty worthless for most people.

Also with a networked DVR service, you are subject to the same problems people have with VOD - and that is all the available channels available at a node for VOD can be used up by neighbors and you may get an error msg that you can't play back your recording when you want to. Of course, a good deployment of SDV could mitigate this problem.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Will it be cheaper than renting a DVR from cable company

You think that savings will be passed on to the customer? I don't.

canesfan2001
join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

canesfan2001 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
I would image you would probably end up with a scenario where the price didn't drop but you got to use the recorded content on all TVs. A win-win scenario (you get "more DVRs" and they make more money)
Stu Pidaso
join:2006-10-12
Greenwood, IN

Stu Pidaso to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Also with a networked DVR service, you are subject to the same problems people have with VOD - and that is all the available channels available at a node for VOD can be used up by neighbors and you may get an error msg that you can't play back your recording when you want to. Of course, a good deployment of SDV could mitigate this problem.
True, but the times that service may be out due to whatever It would be nice to know the program is still being recorded. Also would this allow for more recordings at once?

MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
Netgear CM500
Asus RT-AC68

1 recommendation

MrMoody to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Also with a networked DVR service, you are subject to the same problems people have with VOD - and that is all the available channels available at a node for VOD can be used up by neighbors and you may get an error msg that you can't play back your recording when you want to.
Then obviously the DVR hogs who are causing congestion transferring way more than they could possibly ever watch have to be stopped by going to a bill-by-the-byte system.
disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC

disc

Member

Re: Will it be cheaper than renting a DVR from cable company

said by MrMoody:

Then obviously the DVR hogs who are causing congestion transferring way more than they could possibly ever watch have to be stopped by going to a bill-by-the-byte system.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh.

I have to imagine this will eventually become an issue for providers. Would they use monthly caps to regulate peak busy hour TV viewing?
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

hottboiinnc4 to MrMoody

Member

to MrMoody
how do you figure? it would be just like VOD. It does not use the Internet. The Cable co's VOD and and this would not touch the actual internet.

NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

NOCMan to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I doubt it, they'll save on purchasing the 500 dollar units, and they'll still squeeze you for money.

Capitalism at it's finest.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

This might be interesting depending on what they charge per month for the service. A DVR can run anywhere from $10 to $20 per month for each DVR from a cable company. But a hosted server could be used from multiple TVs without having a DVR on each TV.

It would also depend on whether they allow fast forwarding thru commercials or not. A service that doesn't do that would be pretty worthless for most people.

Also with a networked DVR service, you are subject to the same problems people have with VOD - and that is all the available channels available at a node for VOD can be used up by neighbors and you may get an error msg that you can't play back your recording when you want to. Of course, a good deployment of SDV could mitigate this problem.

It may be PPV like some VOD content is and there will system limits like channel over load and more.

Also will movies on free channels be able to be put on this or will you be forced to use VOD PPV for them?

bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium Member
join:2001-06-09
Derry, NH

bear73 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
and with VOD (which is essentially what this is) we AGAIN have problems of over-saturation of the cable/fiber channels for available bandwidth...

Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
Premium Member
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH

Vchat20 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Personally, I wanna know where you are getting your $10-$20 a month per box figures from. Quote me some real numbers here if you will.

Here in Time Warner territory a 'DVR' charge is only made once per household. Then it's a generic 'set top' charge per box. Right now in our region it's running about $6.95 for the dvr fee and $7.65 per set-top. While still a bit high, it's certainly not as astronomical as you think. So if we had 3 dvr's, it would be $6.95+$7.65+$7.65+$7.65=$29.90/mo compared to your $6.95+$7.65+$6.95+$7.65+$6.95+$7.65=$43.80/mo

RickNY
Premium Member
join:2000-11-02
Bellport, NY

RickNY

Premium Member

Re: Will it be cheaper than renting a DVR from cable company

said by Vchat20:

So if we had 3 dvr's, it would be $6.95+$7.65+$7.65+$7.65=$29.90/mo compared to your $6.95+$7.65+$6.95+$7.65+$6.95+$7.65=$43.80/mo
Cablevision charges $9.95 per month, per DVR plus $6.50 per month for the box rental, making the cost per DVR $16.45 with no discount whatsoever for additional DVRs
BlakePaulson
join:2008-08-06
Alexandria, MN

BlakePaulson to Vchat20

Member

to Vchat20
said by Vchat20:

Personally, I wanna know where you are getting your $10-$20 a month per box figures from. Quote me some real numbers here if you will.

Here in Time Warner territory a 'DVR' charge is only made once per household. Then it's a generic 'set top' charge per box. Right now in our region it's running about $6.95 for the dvr fee and $7.65 per set-top. While still a bit high, it's certainly not as astronomical as you think. So if we had 3 dvr's, it would be $6.95+$7.65+$7.65+$7.65=$29.90/mo compared to your $6.95+$7.65+$6.95+$7.65+$6.95+$7.65=$43.80/mo
That's great Time Warner is so nice... Charter charges $15 for DVR Service (per DVR) plus $5 per set top box. So a DVR costs $20 PER DVR. No discounts for additional DVR's.

Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
Premium Member
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH

Vchat20

Premium Member

Re: Will it be cheaper than renting a DVR from cable company

Wow...Well, I stand corrected then. If it was that bad around here, I woulda just said screw it and made sure the VCR was programmed and live with the poor quality.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
dont worry im sure the entertainment industry is going to go cry to SCOTUS that the big bad federal court hurt their feelings because the judge couldnt be bribed.
jmallory
join:2005-11-02
Essexville, MI

jmallory

Member

Wow!

If the Cable Companies deployed this correctly and allowed two things.

1.) Allow me to purchase as much storage as I want.
2.) Allow me to view the recordings on any STB in the house

I wouldn't need Vista Media Center.
EPS4
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA

EPS4

Member

What are the caveats?

It seems like that this concept, taken to its natural conclusion, could have the cable companies record every single program over a certain period of time (say, a few days), and then make all programs from that time available "on-demand", which I think would be great (from the consumer's perspective). But I suppose there's probably some limitations in the ruling that would make such things impossible?

DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium Member
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC

DaMaGeINC

Premium Member

Cablevision was sued by the entertainment industry

Yet another example of the entertainment industry inhibiting innovation and screwing everyone over.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Cablevision was sued by the entertainment industry

And this surprises you how?

If the entertainment industry wanted to effectively fight this, they'd be far better off designing a DVR that was more friendly to them, such as having less capability to skip ads, and giving it away completely free to anyone who wanted one. That way, people could time-shift for free and avoid paying TiVo or the cablecos. Not everyone would go for it, but I suspect that many people would.

These clowns can sue all they want, but it won't stop progress. Even if they could manage to stop this or that implementation of something, they're trying to hold back the sea. Eventually, they'll lose.

DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium Member
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC

DaMaGeINC

Premium Member

Re: Cablevision was sued by the entertainment industry

Oh no!! Not a surprise at all.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to ISurfTooMuch

Premium Member

to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:

And this surprises you how?

If the entertainment industry wanted to effectively fight this, they'd be far better off designing a DVR that was more friendly to them, such as having less capability to skip ads, and giving it away completely free to anyone who wanted one. That way, people could time-shift for free and avoid paying TiVo or the cablecos. Not everyone would go for it, but I suspect that many people would.

These clowns can sue all they want, but it won't stop progress. Even if they could manage to stop this or that implementation of something, they're trying to hold back the sea. Eventually, they'll lose.
No ad skip? thats the only thing i pay cox $28 a month for for their DVR. even for free i wouldn't go for that.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

SLD

Premium Member

What controls this?

If there is no box, then what are you pointing the remote at to chose content, FF, Rewind, etc?

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

Re: What controls this?

said by SLD:

If there is no box, then what are you pointing the remote at to chose content, FF, Rewind, etc?
There will probably still be a box, but it won't be a DVR. Much cheaper to produce.

bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium Member
join:2001-06-09
Derry, NH

bear73 to SLD

Premium Member

to SLD
your digital cable box, which will be a home-theatre head unit the way things are going... just add amp and speakers :>
the way things are in my area, you are greatly limited on what TV you can watch if you don't have a digital decoder box. And they are pushing to move EVERYONE to digital cable and make all programming digital channels.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

SLD

Premium Member

Re: What controls this?

But you can use a QAM tuner to pull in unencrypted digital cable signal. No box needed. It is up to the cable companies to leave the streams unencrypted. I'm not sure why some of them are encrypted and others left open - ESPN is unencrypted, but USA Network is encrypted. Go figure...

Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
Premium Member
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH

Vchat20

Premium Member

Re: What controls this?

And that is just the thing. The FCC is only mandating that local network stations go unencrypted and a small handful of cable networks mandate remaining unencrypted in their carriage agreements (though more often than not, cableco's encrypt anyways and they often go unnoticed and unchecked.).

The more users that are actually using the the QAM tuners in their tv sets, dvd recorders, etc. that they can bleed off and force to buy a box, the better. It is in their (financially) best interest to keep the open QAM channels to a minimum.

Unless you are in, say, a FiOS area with tv service, don't count on PERMANENTLY having open QAM channels available.

bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium Member
join:2001-06-09
Derry, NH

1 edit

bear73 to SLD

Premium Member

to SLD
all I know is an "enterprising" neighbor has been unsuccessful at getting any of the digital content on the coax without using one of the CableCo's digital boxes...

had to Wiki to find out what QAM was...

JSY
Premium Member
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY

JSY

Premium Member

Lukewarm

My guess is that there will still be a cable box - that they just meant there would be no need for a hard drive box for the consumer.

I'm lukewarm about it all because if it's anywhere as responsive as VOD on TWC - where FF, RW, etc. response times are not immediate - then I am not sure if the experience would be the same. A reduction or elimination of a DVR fee would make it easier to adapt.

DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium Member
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC

DaMaGeINC

Premium Member

Re: Lukewarm

Ya, good point. Response times are like in the 5+ Second range. Would make it really annoying.

ReVeLaTeD
Premium Member
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA

ReVeLaTeD to JSY

Premium Member

to JSY
What I don't like about Network DVR (potentially):

- Time limit restrictions on how long I can keep shows. I like to keep them as long as I want and watch them whenever I please.
- Inability to fast forward commercials. This is a big one for me.
- You'll still be charged a box rental fee.
- You'll still be charged a DVR service fee (and likely a higher one to cover the cost of bandwith).
- Possible increased charges for storing HD content.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Lukewarm

what bandwidth? it would be treated as VOD. It wouldnt use much of anything.

Chances are they would just record the show once and share it among people who wanted to watch it and have most likely a 3 week viewing time for that item. I don't see them storing TV shows and movies for ever.

JSY
Premium Member
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY

JSY

Premium Member

Re: Lukewarm

said by hottboiinnc4:

what bandwidth? it would be treated as VOD. It wouldnt use much of anything.

Chances are they would just record the show once and share it among people who wanted to watch it and have most likely a 3 week viewing time for that item. I don't see them storing TV shows and movies for ever.
I think he was speaking about the potential bandwidth required by the cable co to deliver hundreds of thousands+ of different programming over their lines simultaneously. People aren't all watching the same thing at the same time and the impact would be greater than VOD since there would be a hell of a lot more people using it than VOD.

And in reference to people storing shows and movies forever - you must not know people with TiVos... Personally I had Birds of Prey on my TiVo until it came out on DVD and I think that was about 5 or 6 years ago?
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to ReVeLaTeD

Premium Member

to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD:

What I don't like about Network DVR (potentially):

- Time limit restrictions on how long I can keep shows. I
like to keep them as long as I want and watch them whenever I please.
They already have the ability to limit the time on your DVR box.
- Inability to fast forward commercials. This is a big one for me.
I don't think this has been discussed in the service already available.. again, they could do this now if they wanted. The consumer could actually avoid this by purchasing their own DVR.
- You'll still be charged a box rental fee.
Sure, you will... but it won't be a DVR box rental fee mostly if you wanted to have a DVR on each set, you'd avoid it all together. Some people are paying huge fees to have DVRs on multiple televisions now - this would be a savings.
- You'll still be charged a DVR service fee (and likely a higher one to cover the cost of bandwith).
The model already out there doesn't support that theory. But who knows.
- Possible increased charges for storing HD content.
Doubt it.. it's based on storage space, period.

Here are some positives - and there ARE some.

- You can access content and record content from any standard box in the home.

- Power goes out, your content is still recorded.

- Less hardware in the home to go bad. Everyone complains about how bad the DVR is and how they have to stay home for a tech, this would eliminate the weak spot.

- People complain about the higher power used by the DVR.. this eliminates it.

- If your hardware based DVR fails, you no longer lose your content.

- The potential for purchasing more recording space if you want more space instead of waiting for a DVR that offers a larger HDD.

- You'd be guaranteed that your recording will work no matter what your cable line quality is like as it's recorded at the head end.

- Many systems require digital service in order to have DVR service.. this would remove that requirement.

There are more...

.. and yes, I DO see that there are some down sides as well. For one, I do not like the fact there is such latency in the controls. Further, it would be nice if there was a jump function, including in VOD services, where you could tell the server to "jump" to a certain minute/time of the program.

Who knows... the bottom line is, however, that there is still Tivo service. Considering the amount of money that Comcast, for example, has put into Tivo already, I doubt the box will go away anytime soon. I'm guessing that the network based DVR will be an option. Besides, there IS a major benefit to going network based to the company and that's the DVR really is not a money maker anyway.. it's a retention tool for the customer against dish. With the cost of the box, the monthly revenue they receive from them, and the cost to SERVICE these boxes that have so many problems (as so many report) they don't really make money on the DVR.

Personally, if done right, I see this as a win win.

••••

DaveDude
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey

DaveDude

Member

They need to market as service

This needs to be turned into a service like youtube, hulu etc. Just make it ip based and allow anyone to use it. This way people with DVRs can get access to it.

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

1 edit

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

Sure.

go ahead and do a network dvr then bitch your running out of bandwidth. What next metered Tv? Only way i can see this to work is if docsis 3.0 is deployed.

edit rant off now.

••••••••••
Techie714
join:2005-08-02
Anaheim, CA

Techie714

Member

Tivo!

Tivo, still owns all these cable DVR's.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Re: Tivo!

said by Techie714:

Tivo, still owns all these cable DVR's.
bleh. my cable dvr doesn't have ads, bury my prefs pages deep or force me to record telemedia infomercials.
oh yeah, tivo sucks!

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA
Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D

fuziwuzi

Premium Member

Re: Tivo!

said by dvd536:
said by Techie714:

Tivo, still owns all these cable DVR's.
bleh. my cable dvr doesn't have ads, bury my prefs pages deep or force me to record telemedia infomercials.
oh yeah, tivo sucks!
Evidently you know nothing about TiVO, because my TiVO does none of that. The only "ads" are innocuous items at the bottom of the menu that are easily ignored. There are no ads in the program guide like on most cable DVRs now (I know Comcast has them because I used to have a Comcast DVR).
bugabuga
join:2004-06-10
Austin, TX

bugabuga

Member

Would be nice

Fantastic. There's no limit on the number of shows you can record at the same time. Essentially everything is turned into VOD on the cable's end, and number of channels, needed for this to work, equals or less than number of digital receivers on the node (I am sure they can do MPEG4 compression and band several channels into one for multi-viewer streams with, perhaps, another one used for "last N minutes" catch-up).
Hopefully Time Warner will start similar tests now.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

The Entertainment Industry behaves like a spoiled brat.

When I was about Thirteen I was invited to a birthday party for a friends brother, age about Six. When the parents brought out the birthday cake the bratty Six Year Old began screaming, it was his birthday cake and he did not want anyone else to have any. The kid was behaving like a pig. That is how the Copyright Pigs are acting. They want total control of their copyrighted works even if the use of those works would not result in another sale of their product. Give the Copyright Pigs another few years and fair use will be contracted out of existence.

I would have a problem subscribing to DVR Service if I could not repeat a segment of a program even if it means skipping a commercial. I have repeated some commercials when I had a real interest in the product. On the other hand watching an advertisement for a Medicare Supplement is a waste of my time when I do not qualify for Medicare. I am waiting for the copyright pigs to outlaw mute buttons on remote controls.

cypherstream
MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
·PenTeleData
ARRIS SB8200

cypherstream

MVM

Has it's pro's and Cons

Well it's centralized storage on protected raid arrays for one. Your recordings are safer from hardware failure. Plus on a whim they can release storage upgrades, much like ISP's increased e-mail and web page / ftp storage spaces over the years.

It saves the cable companies lots of money by deploying regular set tops, and cheap (digital only) set tops.

Cons however...

I can easily see the VOD QAM's filling up faster. Possibly creating Denial of Service conditions. Potentially they need to put in a few more QAMs (wasting bandwidth), or segment the nodes so there's less people on each narrowcast.

Response time will not be as good. Think VOD style response. 3-6 second delays between button presses. Maybe cable systems using cheapo poor Motorola boxes will see a regular performance increase during normal TV and guide usage. Motorola DVR's perform horribly and freeze compared to their Non DVR counterparts. Cablevision is entirely SA/Cisco though, so they didn't have that problem to begin with.

Content providers may limit what you can and can't fast forward. I can't see 30 second skip being available, and even if it is, the command delay will make it not worth it. What about going back a few seconds after resuming normal play mode from FF, like a Tivo does to help correct delay time?

Not only transport controls, but show retention could be limited. What if a network says that you can only keep a show for a week tops. Your on a vacation for a week, and when you come home you have none of your shows because they fell behind the retention schedule. Too bad.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Has it's pro's and Cons

said by cypherstream:

Not only transport controls, but show retention could be limited. What if a network says that you can only keep a show for a week tops. Your on a vacation for a week, and when you come home you have none of your shows because they fell behind the retention schedule. Too bad.
A couple quick things:

Networks can already flag content and providers can already can delete content as they wish.. it's already been done a few times.

Second, the supreme court already ruled that the content flag was unlawful. Technically, they aren't supposed to be doing it. There was an article I posed on this the other day. This was banned in 2005... (I know they do it now, but I don't think it will be going on much longer.. )

I really don't think the network DVR will have a deletion/retention schedule.. just my opinion.

anon_5224
join:2001-10-23
united state
Asus RT-AC66

anon_5224

Member

I still like this idea

Cableco's (and FIOS providers too) are going to HAVE to do this eventually in order to survive. DVR's are just a glimpse of the future of CATV. In large cities, DBS will become much more of a niche-market than ever before and Internet-IPTV will seem daunting by comparison. Once analog is shut off (if ever) then this can really take off...

Here's how it will work if done successfully. The cableco's have got to maintain an enormous cache of programming in the head-end... every show on every channel (except Infomercials and color-bars, etc.), perhaps even 10 or more mirrors of moderately popular programs (even more of shows that draw huge numbers). The system will need to be scalable and even self-evolving as time goes on, too. For example, say a program is just a little popular- so much so though that users get errors when trying to access it. Well an evolving system will take care of this issue by mirroring the program and allowing more streams to a given node on the network. Users will involuntarily become ratings-providers simply by watching a program to at least a certain percentage through (indicating interest-level); the cableco's can then sell this data back to the providers. If the cableco's can edit out the ads for an additional fee, this would eliminate the need to worry about lag-time when FF/RW'ing programs for the most part. and the STB's could still have small HDD's for local storage of the last few minutes or more of a program so really this shouldn't be an issue whatsoever. the only lag should exist when initially starting a program.

cable and FIOS have the bandwidth to pull this off. the only way DBS will do this is with either more satellite capacity or by using the Internet (the fastest of which the major cable/FIOS companies control).

bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium Member
join:2001-06-09
Derry, NH

bear73

Premium Member

Re: I still like this idea

said by anon_5224:

...Once analog is shut off (if ever) then this can really take off...
Isn't that what February 2009 is all about? No more analog TV. Once OTA is all digital, what incentive is there for any content provider to remain analog? >:/
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to anon_5224

Premium Member

to anon_5224
because cable isnt bound by any broadcast laws. however they might after feb2009 only sign up new customers with a box.
wildcat man
join:2007-11-03
Kansas City, MO

wildcat man

Member

what are the implications for wireless devices?

the threads talk about home devices. Does the suling prohibit accessing this from wireless devices? That could change things.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678

Member

full house DVR

Why put a 4-5 tuner box with DVR + maybe a OTA tuner box in the house and small box on each tv useing wifi, cat-5, or rg-6?
Gardener
Premium Member
join:2006-10-19
Burnaby, BC

Gardener

Premium Member

Hasn't this been done already?

How about posting every episode of every show to a global storage and distribution network? Users could select what they want to watch. A box could request and show the desired program. It should work.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Hasn't this been done already?

This, and other schemes involving massive amounts of stored programming, are a great idea, which is why the entertainment industry hates them. To understand why, remember that the owners of many broadcast and cable channels do not produce most of their own programming. Much of it is produced by production companies that then license it to the programmers, who insert commercials and air it. Yes, they hate schemes like DVRs because they allow commercial skipping, but they hate them for a much bigger reason. If a workable on-demand delivery system for massive amounts of programming can be created, there is much less need for traditional channels. Once a program is digitized, it can be moved around like any other file. All you need is a transport mechanism, and any high-speed data network will do just fine. At that point, program creators can distribute shows themselves, bypassing the need to deal with the programmers. About the only thing a traditional channel might be good at is broadcasting live content. Actually, this could be done via a live data stream, so, even then, traditional channels will no longer be needed in most cases.

I predict that the first person to assemble such a delivery system is going to make insane amounts of money.

Seandhi
Seeing From a New Level
Premium Member
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX

Seandhi to Gardener

Premium Member

to Gardener
said by Gardener:

How about posting every episode of every show to a global storage and distribution network? Users could select what they want to watch. A box could request and show the desired program. It should work.
It is similar to what Hulu (hulu.com) and Comedy Central are doing. They are putting their shows online for everyone to watch. For advertising, at least in the case of Hulu, they put in 4 30-second commercials. I can watch what I want, when I want, and I don't have to buy a DVR. These types of services are definitely a step in the right direction.
48004931 (banned)
join:2008-08-02
New York, NY

48004931 (banned)

Member

'Cloud'ification of your content

I’m surprised no one has commented on the potential wider ramifications and that this opens the way to the ‘Cloud’ification of your entertainment content.
»deancollinsblog.blogspot ··· ent.html

Regards,
Dean Collins
»www.Cognation.net