Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by bgothard72, Jul 2, 2010.
From the link:
No matter what they do I am never going to give up my Netflix. I love that service too much since Blockbuster is dead to me.
Hmmm... Since I said the very same thing a few days ago in another thread and was essentially called an idiot/troll/trouble-maker for even suggesting such a thing, am I vindicated now that a journalist has said the same thing, or is Investor's Business Daily wrong too?
Same old story, the early adopters always get hammered.:lol:
It would seem that the Whole Home DVR Service as it currently exists is somewhat in conflict with the goal of making VOD available to more viewers.
By design... Whole Home DVR Service, by connecting your boxes via a network... and then connecting that network to the internet... brings the entire broadband feature set to those boxes.
Just because more content is going to be sent to the boxes (Which is nothing new), doesn't reduce or change the impact of the broadband delivery of other titles.
The two couldn't be more unrelated, in terms of having any conflict.
You admitted you were stirring the pot/blowing off steam. http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2516957#post2516957
You're not vindicated because all you did was try and cause an argument over the company plan. Investor's Business Daily just reported the plan most of us knew already...not moan/start trouble about the 400 titles not being available.
it also seems that the traffic on the freeway next to where I work is flowing pretty well today .. that too has about as much in common with VOD as what you've said. :scratchin
They're pitching WHDS as a way to serve mulitiple TVs with a single DVR. This would seem to be counter to the goal of getting more DVRs into the field.
That would seem to make them complimentary goals, no conflicting ones.
Then you are missing the point .. There are lots of households without any DVR. There may be a goal along the lines you are thinking but it has more to do with getting non-DVR homes to become DVR homes (giving DIRECTV $7/month more in revenue).
Whole Home is a way to provide another location to view that DVR (new or existing) and is a different push. It's not surprising that DIRECTV is pushing both, just to different segments of the user base.
VOD == push a DVR to non-DVR customers
MRV == push more receivers or MRV service to existing DVR customers
As I implied .. unrelated, however, they are complimentary.
Those would only be conflicting goals if every household already had a DVR. Since that is not the case, it is completely in sync to get more DVRs into the field, but only need a single one in each household.
In fact, it's probably easier to convince a non-DVR household to get a DVR when they can be talked into just 1 DVR to serve recordings to the whole house.
Note the use of the word beaming (satellite dish) not streaming (internet) this is probably what D12 was intended for all along, goodbye BBCA.
Here we go. The sky is falling, part II.
Same here. A 28-day delay is not going to have me switch from Netflix to PPV, especially since I get more value out of my Netflix membership. I have the 3 disc Blu-ray rental plan. I received 16 discs last month which if I had viewed these titles via PPV it would have cost $95.84. That may seem like a large number of titles, but we do not have any premium channels.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. I would certainly prefer most (if not all) PPV to be available via internet rather than sat. But since a large chunk of DIRECTV's subs aren't connected to the internet, that ain't likely anytime soon.
This is a new concept/methodology .. don't read into it the way you are. There will be plenty of bandwidth to go around for everyone.
No, you were just told that they haven't finished the implementation yet. No one ever said they weren't doing it.
The article posted here says "plans to" not "has."