[Fallguy]

Of cours now that we get Dish, wifes coworkers brother etc are in the mode of you should have got Direct Tv, way better.

I think not, would of had to have 4 receivers instead of 2dual. Their program package with approx 250 channel, locals plus tax runs $78 where dish is approx $65 with tax.

Anything I missed that direct tv members do not understand.

 

[BattleZone]

For most systems up to 4 TVs, Dish is less expensive, especially if the receivers are plugged into the phone line. For systems beyond 4 TVs, DirecTV will get cheaper as the number of TVs increases.

DirecTV does have a few things that Dish does not. The availability of premium sports packages is a big one. Also, DirecTV DVRs dedicate 2 sat tuners to each TV, whereas most Dish DVR configurations only have 1 sat tuner per TV. Also, each DVR has its own hard drive, so you don't have 2 people/TVs competing for the same limited storage space.

On the other hand, Dish's DVRs can be shared between 2 TVs, and when run in Single Mode, most have PiP and dual live buffers, which some people find important.

In the end, Dish and DirecTV are about 85% identical, but folks have strong opinions about what they want out of the remaining 15%, and one or the other service meets those needs better than the other.

 

[epokopac]

Of cours now that we get Dish, wifes coworkers brother etc are in the mode of you should have got Direct Tv, way better.

I think not, would of had to have 4 receivers instead of 2dual. Their program package with approx 250 channel, locals plus tax runs $78 where dish is approx $65 with tax.

Anything I missed that direct tv members do not understand.

If you are an NFL and/or NASCAR and/or MLB and/or March Madness junkie then D* (Direct) may be the better choice. Be prepared to pay significant bucks for those packages especially if you want the HD feeds.

The E* (Dish) HD DVRs seem to have a better track record then their D* counterparts based on info in these forums. I would have had SIGNIFICANT up front costs 18 months ago if I went with D*. I had NONE with E*.

If E* gives you want you really want and is less expensive, then just put the "advice" on "ignore".

 

[TBoneit]

For most systems up to 4 TVs, Dish is less expensive, especially if the receivers are plugged into the phone line. For systems beyond 4 TVs, DirecTV will get cheaper as the number of TVs increases.

DirecTV does have a few things that Dish does not. The availability of premium sports packages is a big one. Also, DirecTV DVRs dedicate 2 sat tuners to each TV, whereas most Dish DVR configurations only have 1 sat tuner per TV. Also, each DVR has its own hard drive, so you don't have 2 people/TVs competing for the same limited storage space.

On the other hand, Dish's DVRs can be shared between 2 TVs, and when run in Single Mode, most have PiP and dual live buffers, which some people find important.

In the end, Dish and DirecTV are about 85% identical, but folks have strong opinions about what they want out of the remaining 15%, and one or the other service meets those needs better than the other.

The drawback of one DVR feeding two TVs is also a advantage depending. Two DVRs in dual mode. You could start watching a movie on either DVR. Go to the TV2 locations, example Kitchen or Bedroom and finish watching it from either DVR as long as you have the channels set differently and both DVRs feed them into one cable.

VIP622/VIP722 two Satellite tuners Plus one OTA tuner. Now if they would only come out with a HD model that has a OTA tuner that does both ATSC & QAM like my DVD recorder has.

 

[BattleZone]

The drawback of one DVR feeding two TVs is also a advantage depending. Two DVRs in dual mode. You could start watching a movie on either DVR. Go to the TV2 locations, example Kitchen or Bedroom and finish watching it from either DVR as long as you have the channels set differently and both DVRs feed them into one cable.

Absolutely right.

In an ideal world, both companies would have DVRs that offered MRV (Multi-Room Viewing) when the DVRs were networked together. TiVo and UlitmateTV had this YEARS ago, though SD only of course.

I know that both providers are talking about a whole-house DVR, presumably with 4+ tuners and a bunch of storage space, and using what are essentially media center extenders at each TV to display the content. The goal is to make this work over coax instead of having to install CAT5/6. The industry still has a ways to go to make that happen, though, and the HD-DVRs already have Ethernet support, and presumably the hardware ability to make MRV happen. It is just the software that needs to be written.

 

[inkahauts]

Directv's DVR's can feed multiple TV's... But they would all be on the same channel. So if you only watch one of the two or three you hook up at a time, it doesn't matter, but if you need to be able to watch multiple channels on different tv's.. Then Dish is the way to go, i that regard, at this time..

 

[harsh]

Now if they would only come out with a HD model that has a OTA tuner that does both ATSC & QAM like my DVD recorder has.

A satellite receiver that has limited CATV support would have an exceedingly small market indeed. DIRECTV doesn't even see fit to include OTA capability anymore, much less QAM.

I have Comcast with limited basic (because bundling is cheaper than HSI alone) and QAM features would bring me nothing as Comcast doesn't offer me any free QAM programming (not even HD locals).

Being "CATV ready" would get me less than a dozen channels that I couldn't record anyway (something your DVD recorder can do).

 

[inazsully]

Comparing the HR20 and the 722. On the 722 plus side we have a much bigger hard drive, it fast forwards much faster, it's black, it does not require (at least mine doesn't) a service agreement at $5mo for service calls, it can record on three tuners (one being OTA), it allows for five custom guide settings, it has a very easy to use PIP. On the HR20 plus side we have Directv's more logical channel groupings, easier recording steps, switches back and forth between recorded shows and live TV. That's about all I can come up with after living with the HR20 for two years and the 722 for one week. Both offer certain exclusive HD channels, which sucks. Advantage goes to the 722 hands down, not even close. The first three pluses for the 722 leave the HR20 gasping for air. Oh, I forgot a really big difference. Directv has made the HR20 almost impossible to get anymore. The replacement HR21 does not allow for OTA hook up. You must order and pay for a second separate piece of equipment. Really dumb.

 

[BNUMM]

Just a small correction. The 722 will require a $5.99 fee for the protection plan after 9 months.

 

[jclewter79]

Dish network allows for only one coax run to the sat box without any additional cost.

 

[Jim5506]

Dish network allows for only one coax run to the sat box without any additional cost.

WHAT??

 

[phrelin]

Dish network allows for only one coax run to the sat box without any additional cost.

I'm not sure what you mean. When my 722 was installed, they ran two cables to the box.

 

[jclewter79]

I am talking about Dish pro plus technology. One coax with a splitter on the end.

 

[mishawaka]

For most systems up to 4 TVs, Dish is less expensive, especially if the receivers are plugged into the phone line. For systems beyond 4 TVs, DirecTV will get cheaper as the number of TVs increases.

DirecTV does have a few things that Dish does not. The availability of premium sports packages is a big one. Also, DirecTV DVRs dedicate 2 sat tuners to each TV, whereas most Dish DVR configurations only have 1 sat tuner per TV. Also, each DVR has its own hard drive, so you don't have 2 people/TVs competing for the same limited storage space.

On the other hand, Dish's DVRs can be shared between 2 TVs, and when run in Single Mode, most have PiP and dual live buffers, which some people find important.

In the end, Dish and DirecTV are about 85% identical, but folks have strong opinions about what they want out of the remaining 15%, and one or the other service meets those needs better than the other.

wow, one of the most informative, and least homer-ish posts i've read on here. :righton:

 

[harsh]

One coax with a splitter on the end.

SEPARATOR.

Yes, it does matter.

 

[harsh]

I'm not sure what you mean. When my 722 was installed, they ran two cables to the box.

Because you have more than two receivers, they used a DP34 switch which is not DPP capable.

 

[jclewter79]

SEPARATOR.

Yes, it does matter.

Yes, it does sorry harsh, I would not want to confuse anybody.

 

[RichardMcCarty]

For most systems up to 4 TVs, Dish is less expensive, especially if the receivers are plugged into the phone line. ..

Well, I didn't find that to be the case at all. My "everything" Dish costs were 25% more than my "everything" DirecTV costs.

The loss of MLB last year and Voom this year were the last straw. I cancelled all Dish programming except for WPIX. Gotta see those Sunday Mets games.

 

[TBoneit]

A satellite receiver that has limited CATV support would have an exceedingly small market indeed. DIRECTV doesn't even see fit to include OTA capability anymore, much less QAM.

I have Comcast with limited basic (because bundling is cheaper than HSI alone) and QAM features would bring me nothing as Comcast doesn't offer me any free QAM programming (not even HD locals).

Being "CATV ready" would get me less than a dozen channels that I couldn't record anyway (something your DVD recorder can do).

Well I have Basic Cable too, along with High Speed Internet. Currently from the basic cable Via the QAM capable tuner in my HDTV and a DVD recorder I can tune the HD locals and Subchannels on both.

The DVD recorder does tune the HD locals however.... My only reason for wanting the 622 to tune QAM is then I could record them as HD adding all the locals + subchannels not just the ones Dish carries. Rather than as 16:9 SD on the DVD recorder.

BTW on another forum I keep hearing that the cable company is supposed to provide the HD locals in the clear.
Oh well.

Cheers

 

[harsh]

My only reason for wanting the 622 to tune QAM is then I could record them as HD adding all the locals + subchannels not just the ones Dish carries. Rather than as 16:9 SD on the DVD recorder.

Understanding that your situation is rather unique, you should consider a CATV DVR.

BTW on another forum I keep hearing that the cable company is supposed to provide the HD locals in the clear.

I've heard that too, but it doesn't happen with my local Comcast and limited basic service.