1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HR34 RVU Field Trial

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by harsh, May 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jul 8, 2011 #661 of 864
    RAD

    RAD Well-Known Member

    16,452
    129
    Aug 5, 2002
    Dripping...
    Since we don't know that the pricing will turn out to be maybe a bit early to come to that conclusion.

    Remember the HR34, with the C30 or a TV with RVU client support, will behave like a HD DVR at each location. So with being able to support 3 RVU clients that's 3 TV's that would have HD DVR functionality without having to shell out the initial charge for a HD DVR, that's $600 minus the cost of the C30, so that could be a savings there. Of course that would be effected by the HR34's upfront charge and what the monthly charge, if any, would be.

    But this could be a win for DIRECTV, even if the long term costs come out higher, since a big complaint new customers have is the upfront costs for hardware. They look at what do I have to pay now usually and I'd guess even with C30 costs figured in the HR34/C30 config will come out cheaper then multiple HR2X's.
     
  2. Jul 8, 2011 #662 of 864
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    I'd suspect "yes" over the long term, but not really in the way you may be thinking. Specifically I think that it will help keep the costs from going up as quickly. So you won't really see a reduction in the bill and you (meaning everyone, not you specifically) won't fully appreciate the savings that follow because you won't be able to see them.

    In other words, it gets built into the pricing model, but we won't see anything specific other than an HR34 that is almost assuredly going to cost more per month than an HR24.

    What I don't know is if DIRECTV is going to charge a higher fee for ALL HR34s regardless of use or if they are going to limit the number of tuners and create multiple tiers of pricing. The latter option would give the consumer the greatest number of choices, but the former option will keep everything consistent.
     
  3. Jul 8, 2011 #663 of 864
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Not to mention that anyone who picks up a new RVU capable TV over the next several years will (in theory) have all they need to hook into the HR34 at no additional cost.
     
  4. Jul 8, 2011 #664 of 864
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    Why is it so abstract? Currently, companies are positioning themselves behind RVU or AllVid in effort to become "the standard". On the surface, RVU (via DirecTV proxy) is "just seeking to be approved as an alternative". But in reality, that would make it the dominant format for all PayTV services. RVU is an alliance of STB manufacturers and PayTV providers seeking to protect at least a portion of the current cash cow that is the closed STB market.

    IF the FCC is short-sighted enough to approve RVU as an alternative to AllVid, you will NEVER EVER see AllVid gateways offered by the pay tv industry. They will instaed produce RVU enabled proprietary servers (HR-34s) that command HUGE monthly fees and long-term commitments and the concept of open competiton in the STB market will die a miserable, painful death all over again just as it did with the corrupt CableCard fiasco.

    The AllVid Alliance is exactly the opposite, an alliance of companies seeking to push the format that will create an open market for the STB devices.

    Sounds very close to just about any "format-war" that has ever been fought.
     
  5. Jul 8, 2011 #665 of 864
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    Except in this case, consumer choice is a huge issue instead of just a bunch of technical checkboxes that are usually the issues in format wars. RVU kills consumer choice, AllVid allows it to flourish.
     
  6. Jul 8, 2011 #666 of 864
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    There's not even format "hand slapping" going on right now, let alone anything resembling a battle.

    Yup....quite true.
     
  7. Jul 8, 2011 #667 of 864
    CraigerCSM

    CraigerCSM Guest

    DTV still might charge per tuner with HR34 and to me that will still sounds like a mirroring fee.
     
  8. Jul 8, 2011 #668 of 864
    CraigerCSM

    CraigerCSM Guest

    If you get HD you still pay $10 for the HD Fee and a $7 DVR fee. If you add MRV its an additional $3 fee, that's $20.00. Plus $6.00 for mirroring fees for extra receivers. What is not known is if DTV will charge in addition to those fees to use the HR-34.
     
  9. Jul 8, 2011 #669 of 864
    Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    9,406
    244
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    Price will always be the deciding factor for most consumers.
     
  10. Jul 8, 2011 #670 of 864
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    I don't entirely buy this comment. I know exactly where you are coming from, but in both cases, you wouldn't have to get a new client box for remote locations. I think that this is a bigger key than having a "smart" box at each remote location as outlined in Allvid.

    The consumer will pay more for the smart box as part of buy-in. The dumb client can be mass produced much cheaper. The consumer will have a choice in what the see on the screen by choosing which vendor they buy the gateway/server from.

    No doubt that this will crimp the likes of TiVo or other interface builders, but will it really be the less consumer friendly choice? It's not as black and white for me as it is apparently for you.
     
  11. Jul 8, 2011 #671 of 864
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    I disagree with this. No matter what protocol is used, the client must be able to decode video. That is where the real cost comes from. Whether the GUI is generated on a remote server or generated at the client isn't that big of a processing difference with today's chips. Hell, just take a look at the size of the C30's firmware on your site. It's bigger than the H20's.
    How so? The whole point of RVU is that the provider (aka the one who you get the gateway/server from) controls the GUI. So if you're subscribed to DirecTV, you're getting their GUI because you have to get their gateway. The only "choice" you have is in what clients you use, although those clients can't have their own GUI so it doesn't really matter.
     
  12. Jul 8, 2011 #672 of 864
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Read the rest of the sentence you quoted ;)
     
  13. Jul 8, 2011 #673 of 864
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    I addressed the rest of the sentence in my post, because I believe it's incorrect:
    The provider controls the gateway, so with RVU that means they control the GUI.

    Now, even with AllVid, RVU could still exist. There would be nothing stopping DirecTV from making an HR44 that receives input from DirecTV's (or anyone else's!) AllVid gateway instead of the dish directly, and then acts as an RVU server from there. The difference is, you wouldn't have to use it.
     
  14. Jul 8, 2011 #674 of 864
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    It's OK .. to you it's black and white .. To me it's a lot of gray. It's all good.
     
  15. Jul 8, 2011 #675 of 864
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    I just don't know if we're on the same page. You seemed to indicate in your post that with RVU, the subscriber would be able to choose the GUI. But that goes against the whole purpose of RVU, so I'm confused.
     
  16. Jul 8, 2011 #676 of 864
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    The choice of GUI is made by choosing a different vendor (i.e. Comcast, DISH, etc.) over DIRECTV. That choice is about as existent as Allvid is these days.
     
  17. Jul 8, 2011 #677 of 864
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    While that true I already pay for HD and DVR. I plan to keep a minimum of 4 other HD DVR's on the account. I have no interest in MRV and I never intend to have a HD receiver but rather HD DVR's only. Why would I want to pay $10 for HD and $7 for DVR fee for my entire account and then turn around and pay another $20 for 1 stand alone box? If that pans out to be true it wont be worth it at all.
     
  18. Jul 8, 2011 #678 of 864
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    Ah, got it. I just misunderstood your wording. Basically it comes down to you not minding being locked into a provider's GUI, while I don't like it. Now I understand where you're coming from. :)
     
  19. Jul 8, 2011 #679 of 864
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    I can't imagine that being the case.
     
  20. Jul 8, 2011 #680 of 864
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    The interesting point (for me) is why the aversion to MRV? Having that seems (to me) that it would solve some of the issues you look to be resolving.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page