HS17-100

Discussion in 'DIRECTV HD DVR/Receiver Discussion' started by slice1900, Nov 30, 2016.

  1. Mar 2, 2017 #821 of 2175
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,050
    1,662
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Directv could make the "box" the size of a USB stick if they wanted, but it costs more. Future clients might be a bit smaller but there's a limit due to the ports. It could become a bit less wide if they removed the excess around the coax port, and I suppose the HDMI and USB could be vertical.

    However, being "all IP" has nothing to with the size of a client. An RJ45 jack takes up the same space as an F81 connector. As I've told you more times than I can count, the Genie/client already is "all IP" as they use IP to communicate with each other. Just because that IP is carried via MoCA over coax instead of ethernet over cat5 doesn't change the fact it is IP.
     
    compnurd likes this.
  2. Mar 2, 2017 #822 of 2175
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Well-Known Member

    1,670
    104
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    I was just saying I think it could be an easier install using Ethernet. They wouldn't have to use one coax going to a two-way splitter, then one coax going to the HS-17 and one going to the Client. They could just run one coax to the HS-17 and then run the Ethernet cable to the Client box. I know it has been said that it could go anywhere their is an open coax outlet but what if their isn't one?
     
  3. Mar 2, 2017 #823 of 2175
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,257
    847
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    There is no point. I would venture 90% of houses don't have Ethernet at a TV location. They have coax. Or if neither there is wireless. Directv is catering to the masses. Not the few. This also keeps all video traffic off your home network which they want nothing to do with. Verizon is different since they are also selling you a home internet gateway and want to be involved with your home And again on this. The Ethernet port on the box is to provide internet to the box. Not back feed out a tv stream Ethernet is not easier to install for them. Coax just works No home routers or whatever else to deal with
     
  4. Mar 2, 2017 #824 of 2175
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Well-Known Member

    1,670
    104
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    Again not saying running it over a customers home Ethernet network just reducing the amount of coax cables and not needing a splitter if they placed the HS-17 next to the client box by using just one Ethernet cable going from HS-17's Ethernet port to the Ethernet port on the back of a client box if they would ever add one to the client box. It seems to me that Verizon has found a way to make a smaller and cheaper client box with Ethernet and not add cost by adding an Ethernet port. Or just have a coax going into the HS-17 and a Ethernet going out from the HS-17 to the RVU TV's Ethernet port. They could then use the HS-17's WIFI for the Internet. I think that would be even easier than running a separate coax line to the HS-17 if all the Coax outlets were taken.
     
  5. Mar 2, 2017 #825 of 2175
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,257
    847
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    How do you know it is cheaper for Verizon? Also by your scenario you could reduce a cable by just having a wireless client box next to the HS-17
     
  6. Mar 2, 2017 #826 of 2175
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Well-Known Member

    1,670
    104
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    Isn't smaller always cheaper? Also WIFI not as reliable as wired.
     
  7. Mar 2, 2017 #827 of 2175
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,257
    847
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    No it isn't. And if wifi isn't not as reliable as wired then why do you want it for internet on your system for on demand and whatever possible streaming services it may support. And you may want to re read that article. Only the wireless client is supposed to be the size of a deck of cards
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2017
  8. Mar 2, 2017 #828 of 2175
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Well-Known Member

    1,670
    104
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    Isn't that why they are going with Server/Client model because the Client boxes are smaller and cheaper than building standalone DVR's? Also isn't SatelliteTV over WIFI different than Internet WIFI?
     
  9. Mar 2, 2017 #829 of 2175
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,257
    847
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    That a dvr yes. However when it comes to clients which is what we have all been referring to here You can only go so small before it does become More expensive and again. Only the wireless client they are releasing is that small. It mentions nothing on the other box with Ethernet And no the wireless signal is not different . The current wireless bridge uses a 5ghz network for the tv signal just like your home router does except on its own private network
     
  10. Mar 2, 2017 #830 of 2175
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,158
    1,598
    Nov 13, 2006
    I guess I should have said for Ethernet then, because you bring that up a lot too. It makes no sense to add that hardware to the clients. The more ways to connect the more cost, and there's no way they want to have to make and run Ethernet cables for all over a house, and not be able to use existing coax in the majority of homes throughout the country. It just isn't economical. Coax is simpler in every way, and still does everything that an Ethernet cable would do, with much less work. Clients are small now, and could be even smaller, but this is probably cheaper at the moment, so they are the size they are today. I didnt see anything about those clients from verizon to say they wheren't coax either anyway, did you? I wouldn't be surprised if they where coax connected.
     
  11. Mar 2, 2017 #831 of 2175
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,158
    1,598
    Nov 13, 2006
    You'd be wrong thinking that is easier than running a second coax or using a splitter and a tiny bit more of coax. Its way easier to run, build, cut, and terminate a coax cable. You have to build a system that will work best for every situation, not just a few, and Ethernet just isn't that.
     
  12. Mar 2, 2017 #832 of 2175
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,158
    1,598
    Nov 13, 2006
    In terms of size, it can be cheaper sometimes to make something smaller due to wasted space. but, once you get to a certain point, it because more expensive to make it any smaller. In fact if becomes a lot more expensive at some point. You have to deal with so much heat in such smaller area that it changes how you have to build and what types of parts you can uyse to deal with all the issues. I am sure Directv is trying to find that point where its small as possible while still not expensive to build just because its smaller.
     
  13. Mar 3, 2017 #833 of 2175
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    26,729
    605
    Jul 25, 2002
    E.Mdtrn Sea
    better if you will think about versatility of the client in term of video/audio processing, eg H.264 & H.265, DD5.1 & AAC, etc
     
  14. Mar 3, 2017 #834 of 2175
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,937
    2,550
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    That is hard to believe when it seems that most of your posts seem to try to pull the discussion over to IP distribution. DIRECTV is a satellite service. They have chosen to go with a client server model to enhance the whole home experience. Content available on any TV in the house (and other devices). The HS-17 fits the design of putting a server out of the way and running small clients via the existing coax network. If you're going to put a client right next to the HS-17 you might as well get a Genie ... not try to add IP over Ethernet just to avoid a coax splitter. But your "thing" for IP is distracting you from understanding what the HS-17 will be and is distracting others who might not understand that the completely unrelated products you keep bringing to the thread have nothing to do with the HS-17.

    So please, try to focus on DIRECTV satellite service - and the HS-17. Not the myriad of other services and their products.
     
    Smuuth likes this.
  15. Mar 3, 2017 #835 of 2175
    espaeth

    espaeth AllStar

    350
    157
    Oct 13, 2003
    It's also substantially easier from a SKU management standpoint for materials that techs are going to have to carry. They already have to stock messenger/straight coax today to account for dish grounding on coax runs, but at least all of the compression fittings for terminating the coax cables are the same throughout.

    You add Ethernet to the mix, now you have to purchase, store, distribute, and manage inventory for yet another cable spool type for all your field techs, supply them with a completely different cable end (RJ45s), give them the necessary tools to terminate those cables, etc. All of those details rack up costs surprisingly quickly.

    To your point, all this stuff is setup for the wiring configurations to be optimized for the installing technicians, not necessarily for the end consumer.
     
  16. Mar 3, 2017 #836 of 2175
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,408
    52
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    I agree that on the whole, coax is easier and probably cheaper for them to deal with. However, with AT&T moving more and more installs to their own pre-merger employees, they are actually more experienced with and primarily deal with Ethernet. U-Verse TV could be distributed over coax, but if they encountered a home with no wiring, Ethernet was the preferred distribution method.

    Over time I would expect to see a loosening up of the aversion to Ethernet that DirecTV had prior to the merger. I'm sure they will keep using coax, and it might even remain the "preferred" way (or at least for some installers) but that Ethernet distribution could become an "approved" method, especially for U-Verse to DirecTV conversions, since a good chunk of those U-Verse TV homes are going to have Ethernet.
     
  17. Mar 3, 2017 #837 of 2175
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,050
    1,662
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    They'd have to introduce a new client with an RJ45 jack, or add one to the C71 or whatever comes next. Since nothing like that has shown up on the FCC site nor the RVU Alliance site, it isn't around the corner.

    They're shedding Uverse TV subscribers at a rate of over a million a year; they're down to about 4.5 million now, so they better hurry if they plan to use ethernet as a migration strategy, because they'll probably be about gone by the end of the decade. Almost all of those Uverse homes also have coax, so it probably doesn't matter too much.

    Though you could be right about the AT&T influence eventually getting Directv over their aversion to dealing with a customer's home network. They already rely on it for the outgoing internet connection, so if they set up an ethernet network with its own Directv/AT&T labeled router that kept the RVU traffic isolated on the 169.254 subnet like DECA does it wouldn't really be any different than the coax and green label splitter solution of today.
     
  18. Mar 3, 2017 #838 of 2175
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,158
    1,598
    Nov 13, 2006
    You may be forgetting something. Att bought DIRECTV because Uverse has done terribly and DIRECTV has done great so they wanted to be better. Maybe they'll learn from DIRECTV that making client with two connections is a waste of time money and energy both in production and application.

    And it's not an aversion. It's practicality. There's nothing to gain going Ethernet. Nothing. There's plenty to go wrong though.

    And everyone always talks about Ethernet Uverse. I've seen many systems in my area, I've never seen one with Ethernet. They are all coax. I have to wonder how much they actually used Ethernet. Has anyone on here had Uverse with Ethernet being the only connection?
     
  19. Mar 3, 2017 #839 of 2175
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,408
    52
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    Your second paragraph is more along the lines of where I was going, not necessarily that they'd switch to Ethernet or use it as a "migration strategy". Basically, if it's available, use it. Or, if it's more practical for a given situation, use it. Primarily for RVU TVs, but there's nothing preventing an ethernet equipped client from dropping relatively quickly.

    I bought a house that had Charter cable in 2013 according to the date inside the demarc box outside and the previous owners had U-Verse up until last March when I bought the house. AT&T had re-wired each TV location with Ethernet and left the previous coax alone.

    And in terms of what's to gain or not from Ethernet...for customers in AT&T's internet footprint and who are taking AT&T internet, they use Ethernet all the time. The connection from the outside ONT (the box that terminates the fiber) to the gateway/'modem' inside is Ethernet.
     
  20. Mar 4, 2017 #840 of 2175
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,158
    1,598
    Nov 13, 2006
    Sure for giga. They won't need satelites anyway most likely. But non giga areas... I don't see them worrying about dsl houses moving to Ethernet. I'd say there giga footprint not internet myself.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements