# Today, i got the BAD letter from DirecTV



## haslip (Jul 16, 2004)

We are excited that you are now enjoying your local high-definition channels from directv and have some important news about your servcie.

blah blah

Now that we are rolling out local HD channels to more and more cities across the country, our network agreements require that we disconnect the HD DNS feeds from customers in cities where we offer the local HZD channels (me in philly for one)

channels being disconnected on August 2nd.

CBS82
nbc82
abc86
fox88

Sure i guess i can still work with the OTA feeds, but this sucks.

Anything I can do???????????????


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Nope... you can try to call and plead your case, but that is about it.

They are clamping down on the HD-DNS


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

wonderful that they force you to watch stuff live now eh? Do you feel the joy? This certainly must be increasing customer satisfaction...call jd powers


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

It's not like DirecTV wrote the laws they they have to enforce (and thus be the bad guy)


----------



## dishrich (Jan 16, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> It's not like DirecTV wrote the laws they they have to enforce (and thus be the bad guy)


No, but IF they would get the fricken MPEG4 DVR out, (so you could DVR these wonderful new local HD feeds) they wouldn't look SO bad...  

Guess I'll be getting one of these very soon, since I'm in the Chicago DMA...


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

ebonovic said:


> It's not like DirecTV wrote the laws they they have to enforce (and thus be the bad guy)


It's not their fault that they rolled out HD-LIL without an HD-DVR, so that HD-DVR users are left with NOTHING?


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Hey... I didn't say squat about the DVR situation.

Two different issues:
-) FCC compliance (urged heavily by the local networks)
-) DVR for MPEG4

Sure they have a tight relationship... 

But what should they have done:
a) Release the HR20-700 early, before it was ready to go
b) Freeze the Local-In-Locals in HD, even for those that have no desire for a DVR
c) Disregard the FCC and the local networks complaints?

It really sucks, yes... and I am in the same boat as you all (as I use DNS-CBS from NY, for CSI)


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> It's not like DirecTV wrote the laws they they have to enforce (and thus be the bad guy)


That letter they sent out said "our network agreements require that we disconnect the HD DNS feeds." Sounds like they did write the "laws" they have to enforce. Or at least they negotiated them and signed an agreement that established them.


----------



## unclejon (Feb 5, 2003)

I'm in San Francisco--which already has MPEG-4 locals, I believe--and I currently get three of the LA HD feeds...does this mean I'm going to lose them on 8/2 as well?


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

Bananfish said:


> That letter they sent out said "our network agreements require that we disconnect the HD DNS feeds." Sounds like they did write the "laws" they have to enforce. Or at least they negotiated them and signed an agreement that established them.


That may be how it sounds, but that isn't the way it is.


----------



## Red Five (May 5, 2004)

I'm currently getting HD Locals over the satellite in LA through the O&O stations. I'm not following how the MPEG4 changeover will affect this - what's a HD-DNS feed and what's a HDZ feed? If we already have HD Locals, are we going to lose them?

Not getting my beloved Dodgers in HD on Prime Ticket is bad enough (since the RSN is only MPEG4), but if they actually take away Locals in HD, my wife is going to tear D* a new one. And, obviously, changing to the new HD-DVR isn't an option.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

ebonovic said:


> Hey... I didn't say squat about the DVR situation.
> 
> Two different issues:
> -) FCC compliance (urged heavily by the local networks)
> ...


They should not have rolled out MPEG4 locals until the had the proper equipment to receive them.

They COULD have released them in MPEG2. They aren't TOUCHING the capacity of Spaceway 1 and 2. Why does it HAVE to be MPEG4 before the equipment is out? They couldve put out an update to the HR10 to allow it to receive the KA sats and rolled on HD-LIL in MPEG2, then switched to MPEG4 when ready...

They CHOSE to release HD-LIL before they had the equipment, causing current customer to LOSE channels!


----------



## tnedator (Dec 4, 2003)

Bananfish said:


> That letter they sent out said "our network agreements require that we disconnect the HD DNS feeds." Sounds like they did write the "laws" they have to enforce. Or at least they negotiated them and signed an agreement that established them.


I don't think DirecTV wants to be in this boat:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002575292


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

haslip said:


> Anything I can do???????????????


"Move" to an area that still qualifies for the distant network feeds.


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> They should not have rolled out MPEG4 locals until the had the proper equipment to receive them.
> 
> They COULD have released them in MPEG2. They aren't TOUCHING the capacity of Spaceway 1 and 2. Why does it HAVE to be MPEG4 before the equipment is out? They couldve put out an update to the HR10 to allow it to receive the KA sats and rolled on HD-LIL in MPEG2, then switched to MPEG4 when ready...
> 
> They CHOSE to release HD-LIL before they had the equipment, causing current customer to LOSE channels!


They do have equipment to receive MPEG-4 high definition signals. It is called the HR20-600. It would be silly for them not to have a receiver capabil of receiving them. They do not have a HD DVR. That is a big difference.

To "update" the HR10 requires a hardware modification. The receivers in the HR10-250 can not receive KA band, the HR10-250 would require a whole new receiver.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

That would be the H20-100 and the H20-600 (no R  )


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

rminsk said:


> They do have equipment to receive MPEG-4 high definition signals. It is called the HR20-600. It would be silly for them not to have a receiver capabil of receiving them. They do not have a HD DVR. That is a big difference.
> 
> To "update" the HR10 requires a hardware modification. The receivers in the HR10-250 can not receive KA band, the HR10-250 would require a whole new receiver.


I'm curious why you think the HR10 can not receive KA banad with the correct adapter / multiswitch....


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> I'm curious why you think the HR10 can not receive KA banad with the correct adapter / multiswitch....


Maybe it can recieve it, but it can't do anything with the channels carried,
as it does not have any MPEG4 hardware within it.

phox


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> I'm curious why you think the HR10 can not receive KA banad with the correct adapter / multiswitch....


The receivers in the HR10-250 can only receive signals in the Ku Band in the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz range. The Ka Band is from 18 to 40 GHz and I think satellites only use the 18.318.8 GHz and 19.720.2 GHz ranges. You would have to shift the Ka Band frequency down to the Ku Band range for the HR10-250 to receive it.


----------



## Matt L (Aug 13, 2000)

I truly wish the local affiliates would go away in favor of National delivery of network television. I live in an area that can receive 3 different DMAs OTA. For years Comcast provided most of the 3 sets of network feeds. Now, like D, they are cracking down, often at local stations insistence, blocking or removing duplicate network feeds. Since my local market is moderate size the local stations are requiring we watch an inferior product, their's, simply because they cannot compete with the big boys in the neighboring DMA 

My brother was griping the other day about Comcast blocking the channel he wanted to watch and I chuckled to myself, thank god I have an antenna and am not at the mercy of the local stations. But they way things are going who knows the FCC may be knocking at my door and demanding that I allow them to reprogram my receivers to block out non-local network feeds.


----------



## Seminole (Oct 27, 2003)

I have been told I can keep my DNS feeds until I upgrade even though they have been live in Boston for a while now. I like many are waiting on the DVR to be released. My OTA channels arent very solid for Fox and CBS which is probably because of the tunner in the Tivo box so I really need the DNS stations.


----------



## gquiring (Dec 13, 2002)

It amazes me that D* can't release a Mpeg4 HD DVR. What the hell are these ding dongs doing? They rollout HD locals and have no DVR to go with it. Are there any numbers out there of how many Mpeg4 customers there are now?


----------



## Mavrick22 (Feb 7, 2006)

gquiring said:


> It amazes me that D* can't release a Mpeg4 HD DVR. What the hell are these ding dongs doing? They rollout HD locals and have no DVR to go with it. Are there any numbers out there of how many Mpeg4 customers there are now?


I think the problem with releasing the Mpeg 4 HD DVR is that they do not want a repeat of the R15 fisaco and are trying to make sure it is somewhat stable before they release it that way they wont have near as many complaint calls.

Of course they will still get some for of course this new box is not going to be TIVO based.


----------



## tall1 (Oct 12, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> But what should they have done:
> a) Release the HR20-700 early, before it was ready to go
> b) Freeze the Local-In-Locals in HD, even for those that have no desire for a DVR
> c) Disregard the FCC and the local networks complaints?
> ...


or d) Continue relationship with Tivo who's core competency is DVR technology.

We would have had an MPEG4 Tivo HD DVR months ago.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

tall1 said:


> We would have had an MPEG4 Tivo HD DVR months ago.


Seriously... do you think that?
Then why haven't we seen the comcast one yet?
I mean, what would the difference really be between what TiVos where already out there, and what Comcast would did.

Change the tuners so they could work with Comcast's digital stream?
Implement a 2nd tuner? How far would it have been from the DTiVo model...

There is a lot more too it then just slapping together a box, and dropping the software on there.

Sure "maybe" if they just took the HR10-250, updated it's tuners so it could see the KA/KU streams from the new sats, and then added an MPEG-4 decoding chip... but nothing else... it is "possible", but.....


----------



## minorthr (Nov 24, 2001)

I'm in the philly area and I have not yet received this letter. I also do not subscribe to Mpeg4 locals though. I dont see a point in subscribing to them if you cant record them. 

If I do get this letter though I'm definitely done with Directv. I'm not going to switch to watching HD locals live, when I could go to comcast or E* and get an hd dvr and locals.


----------



## brott (Feb 23, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> Seriously... do you think that?
> Then why haven't we seen the comcast one yet?
> I mean, what would the difference really be between what TiVos where already out there, and what Comcast did.
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasnt' TiVo going to use the digital boxes already in place @ Comcast? This would mean a totally different platform (Motorola?) plus a way to upload the first release to initialize the box. I think that that is an entirely different set of circumstances and cannot be easily compared to adding a different set of tuners capable of decoding MPEG4.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

But in the same regards..... you really where looking at new hardware for a DTiVo MPEG-4

New Motherboard design, tuners, ect.... different Manufacturer maybe.... not like you could just pluck items off the 3+ year old (design wise) HR10-250 and drop new ones on their easily...


----------



## haslip (Jul 16, 2004)

Well, after getting no love on the phone from DirecTV, i have decided to "move"

Does anybody know what city in the "central/East" I can move to that does not, and will not for a while, have "local HD channels"?

Scott


----------



## finaldiet (May 10, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> But in the same regards..... you really where looking at new hardware for a DTiVo MPEG-4
> 
> New Motherboard design, tuners, ect.... different Manufacturer maybe.... not like you could just pluck items off the 3+ year old (design wise) HR10-250 and drop new ones on their easily...


Earl
Will we still get local HD over antenna and record?


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

brott said:


> Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasnt' TiVo going to use the digital boxes already in place @ Comcast? This would mean a totally different platform (Motorola?) plus a way to upload the first release to initialize the box. I think that that is an entirely different set of circumstances and cannot be easily compared to adding a different set of tuners capable of decoding MPEG4.


Yes. Tivo was very specific about this -- re-use existing set-top boxes for Comcast; no truck roll.

There's a semi-active thread over at avsforum on this very topic.


----------



## gquiring (Dec 13, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> Seriously... do you think that?
> Then why haven't we seen the comcast one yet?
> I mean, what would the difference really be between what TiVos where already out there, and what Comcast would did.
> 
> ...


They managed to get the new Sats up there, make new MPEG4 receivers and somehow ignored the DVR part. I agree if they had stuck with Tivo it would have been here already.


----------



## brott (Feb 23, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> But in the same regards..... you really where looking at new hardware for a DTiVo MPEG-4
> 
> New Motherboard design, tuners, ect.... different Manufacturer maybe.... not like you could just pluck items off the 3+ year old (design wise) HR10-250 and drop new ones on their easily...


Yes, I agree with you on this. I think the point to me was more that DirecTV was supposed to have it out a year ago and that's when TiVo started. I think that we would both agree that TiVo should have it out about now (this fall), but DirecTV really had a head start on this.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

gquiring said:


> They managed to get the new Sats up there, make new MPEG4 receivers and somehow ignored the DVR part. I agree if they had stuck with Tivo it would have been here already.


What evidence is there that they ignored the DVR part? Please provide specifics. Saying, "Otherwise it would be out by now," does not count.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

minorthr said:


> I'm in the philly area and I have not yet received this letter. I also do not subscribe to Mpeg4 locals though. I dont see a point in subscribing to them if you cant record them.
> 
> If I do get this letter though I'm definitely done with Directv. I'm not going to switch to watching HD locals live, when I could go to comcast or E* and get an hd dvr and locals.


i know we never talked about it but i never knew you had waivers. No chance of OTA in the flooded sticks eh?


----------



## gquiring (Dec 13, 2002)

cheer said:


> What evidence is there that they ignored the DVR part? Please provide specifics. Saying, "Otherwise it would be out by now," does not count.


Specifics? How can they implement Mpeg 4 HD locals throughout the country and not offer a DVR to record them in HD? Someone missed the boat here. I would not be surprised if they originally had planned on Tivo being the answer and somewhere somehow the Tivo D* marriage fell apart.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

gquiring said:


> Specifics? How can they implement Mpeg 4 HD locals throughout the country and not offer a DVR to record them in HD?


That is not the same thing as "ignoring" the DVR. Could be they had technical issues -- in fact, that's the most likely explanation.

Lots and lots and lots of people don't use DVRs. Should they have had to wait on MPEG4? Of course not.


> Someone missed the boat here. I would not be surprised if they originally had planned on Tivo being the answer and somewhere somehow the Tivo D* marriage fell apart.


I would be -- that just doesn't make much sense. You don't plan a large-scale rollout like HD-LiL without agreements in place, etc.

A far more likely explanation, IMO, is that they've hit technical problems and they want them corrected before rolling it out. Remember the R15 rollout? No sane businessperson would want a repeat of that -- it costs too much money in terms of the support.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

ebonovic said:


> Seriously... do you think that?
> Then why haven't we seen the comcast one yet?
> I mean, what would the difference really be between what TiVos where already out there, and what Comcast would did.
> 
> ...


Well, if you look at Dish Network, they updated their Mpeg2 dvr's to Mpeg4 with minimal time and trouble.....


----------



## gquiring (Dec 13, 2002)

cheer said:


> That is not the same thing as "ignoring" the DVR. Could be they had technical issues -- in fact, that's the most likely explanation.
> 
> Lots and lots and lots of people don't use DVRs. Should they have had to wait on MPEG4? Of course not.


Ahhh D* sold a good amount of SD Tivo's. And the local cable co's are also supplying a good amount of DVR's these days. It is not a small market anymore. If a consumer bought HD I think the trend is they want a DVR and are more likey to pay for it. D* spent a good amount of money launching those new Sats. How they could one or way or another not have a DVR with it is just plain stupid. They are going to loose customers to cable that can give them local HD with a DVR now.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

gquiring said:


> Ahhh D* sold a good amount of SD Tivo's. And the local cable co's are also supplying a good amount of DVR's these days. It is not a small market anymore. If a consumer bought HD I think the trend is they want a DVR and are more likey to pay for it. D* spent a good amount of money launching those new Sats. How they could one or way or another not have a DVR with it is just plain stupid. They are going to loose customers to cable that can give them local HD with a DVR now.


That there are a lot of DVRs out there is not the same thing as saying that there are no people who are fine without one, or who would rather have had the LiLs as soon as possible regardless of DVR status.

And yes, they will lose (not "loose") customers to cable. That opportunity still exists, as cable can give you many more locals in HD. On the other hand, cable prices still help keep the satellite companies in business.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with your original assertion that DirecTV "ignored" the DVR requirement.


----------



## minorthr (Nov 24, 2001)

newsposter said:


> i know we never talked about it but i never knew you had waivers. No chance of OTA in the flooded sticks eh?


I have everything except NBC. The NBC in philly gave them, but the station out of harrisburg claims I can receive their signal OTA which I absolutely can not. I fought with them and D* for a few months and D* refused the signal test since by that point I could subscribe to HD locals. I eventually just gave up and I never watch NBC.

Also my TV can tune the unencrypted locals from the comcast life line so I always have that as a live backup.


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> But in the same regards..... you really where looking at new hardware for a DTiVo MPEG-4
> 
> New Motherboard design, tuners, ect.... different Manufacturer maybe.... not like you could just pluck items off the 3+ year old (design wise) HR10-250 and drop new ones on their easily...


Why a new motherboard design or manufacturer? It only needed new tuners. The platform is tried and true...


----------



## minorthr (Nov 24, 2001)

rminsk said:


> Why a new motherboard design or manufacturer? It only needed new tuners. The platform is tried and true...


Well you would also have to change the software to work with the new tuners. Which you would think would be easy.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

rminsk said:


> Why a new motherboard design or manufacturer? It only needed new tuners. The platform is tried and true...


You would have to introduce a new decoding chipset... as well.


----------



## BBREAL (May 27, 2004)

I live in LA and my local channels ( network ) are the West coast feed channels 81,83,87,& 89. Is that going to change anytime soon or we they stay on mpeg 2?

Brian


----------



## Fluffybear (Nov 10, 2000)

BBREAL said:


> I live in LA and my local channels ( network ) are the West coast feed channels 81,83,87,& 89. Is that going to change anytime soon or we they stay on mpeg 2?
> 
> Brian


That seems to be the $64 question.

I have seen dozens of rumors flying around that DirecTV had planned to get rid of the MPEG2 DNS signals before football season and then there is others which says they will keep them for another year or two..

I guess right now we will have to wait and see what happens here in a couple of weeks.


----------



## kquickle (Mar 1, 2005)

haslip said:


> Well, after getting no love on the phone from DirecTV, i have decided to "move"
> 
> Does anybody know what city in the "central/East" I can move to that does not, and will not for a while, have "local HD channels"?
> 
> Scott


I live in Reading, PA, and got the letter today too. Called Retention and they could only offer to re-submit the HD waivers for me and to offer me the install of their off-air antenna. I think I may have to move now as well.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

kquickle said:


> I live in Reading, PA, and got the letter today too. Called Retention and they could only offer to re-submit the HD waivers for me and to offer me the install of their off-air antenna. I think I may have to move now as well.


comcast or service electric territory?


----------



## pmaggan (Oct 23, 2004)

haslip said:


> Well, after getting no love on the phone from DirecTV, i have decided to "move"
> 
> Does anybody know what city in the "central/East" I can move to that does not, and will not for a while, have "local HD channels"?
> 
> Scott


Use This DTV Link to qualify yourself for HD DNS


----------



## kquickle (Mar 1, 2005)

newsposter said:


> comcast or service electric territory?


Service Electric  Although a call to Comcast to double-check resulted in them telling me I would NEVER be able to get their service at my address unless they PURCHASED Service Electric - I believe I am only about 4 blocks away from the Comcast Service area.


----------



## dmunjal (Dec 16, 2002)

Just caught this thread. I got the letter from DirecTV yesterday. I don't have DNS but waivers from all four local affiliates. Will I still get disconnected?


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

If you are receiving either the LA/NY HD Feeds... then yes, you will be disconnected.

If those two "happen" to be your local, then you need to call and have it switch from a DNS waiver to something else so it will continue (Per Bill who had to do this in LA)


----------



## Rowsdower (Dec 11, 2002)

haslip said:


> Well, after getting no love on the phone from DirecTV, i have decided to "move"
> 
> Does anybody know what city in the "central/East" I can move to that does not, and will not for a while, have "local HD channels"?
> 
> Scott


"Move" to New York City. The stations in question *are* local, so you shouldn't lose them until the MPEG-2 feeds are discontinued.

This also would enable you to receive all of DirecTV's SD New York City transmissions. (WCBS, WNBC, WNYW, WABC and the local sports channels are on national beams, and all of the other SD NYC stations are on the same spot beams as the SD Philadelphia stations.)


----------



## dmunjal (Dec 16, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> If you are receiving either the LA/NY HD Feeds... then yes, you will be disconnected.
> 
> If those two "happen" to be your local, then you need to call and have it switch from a DNS waiver to something else so it will continue (Per Bill who had to do this in LA)


I live in SF Bay Area and I would like to continue to receive the SF HD locals on my H20 while receiving the LA HD Feeds on my two HD Tivos.

I think it makes sense to "move" but where? I can't move to LA because I will lose the spot beams for the HD locals in SF, right?

BTW, I can't get OTA and believe me I've tried.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

kquickle said:


> Service Electric  Although a call to Comcast to double-check resulted in them telling me I would NEVER be able to get their service at my address unless they PURCHASED Service Electric - I believe I am only about 4 blocks away from the Comcast Service area.


well with all the crap you hear about comcast...SE doesn't seem so bad.  If you'd like to talk to someone that has it, I think I know a guy that has the moxi box there.

PM me if ur interested


----------



## minorthr (Nov 24, 2001)

kquickle said:


> I live in Reading, PA, and got the letter today too. Called Retention and they could only offer to re-submit the HD waivers for me and to offer me the install of their off-air antenna. I think I may have to move now as well.


Do you have HD locals with D*. Reason I ask is I do not and I still have not received this letter. If my channels suddenly disappear before a new mpeg 4 HD box comes out I'm done with D*


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

rminsk said:


> The receivers in the HR10-250 can only receive signals in the Ku Band in the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz range. The Ka Band is from 18 to 40 GHz and I think satellites only use the 18.318.8 GHz and 19.720.2 GHz ranges. You would have to shift the Ka Band frequency down to the Ku Band range for the HR10-250 to receive it.


actually if I understand correctly one of the major functions of the LNB's is to take the sat signal (be it ka or ku) and shift the band to another lower set of frequencies closer to uhf/vhf that are more suited to moving around on a coax cable. So the Ku lnb's are already shifting the frequencies. The problem is the ka dishes shift the frequencies not to the same place that ku shift occurs but to other bands (some of which are usually occupied by OTA TV- that's why you cant diplex the OTA on the same cable as the new Ka HD content from Directv).

So there is pretty much no reason they couldn't have made a Ka switch that converted to the correct frequencies for the Tivo's to see. They would also need to use MPEG2 and forgo the new modulating system (8psk?). But since they havne't even made a dent in the room on the spaceways they could have.

They would have needed to rethink there whole ka/ku stacking scheme (or made a custom switch for tivo's) and bought a crap load of MPEG2 encoders to be replaced with mpeg4 at a later date. So I can see there reluctance to do it. But the fact is their incompetence (or their reliance on the incompotent fools at their sister company NDS) is the only reason an MPEG4 DVR is not availible before the drop dead date for mpeg2 feeds.

Had they even had the sense to realize NDS sucks when they sat down with the big 4 and set up the deals for O&O stations, they could have put in a provision that DVR customers wouldn't get screwed when NDS failed to deliver.

And dont forget that they anounced the uncentric mpeg4 dvr should have been out by now but for whatever reason abandoned that. Could have been they wanted to go NDS only= their fault. Could have been uncentric couldn't deliver = their fault for trusting an unproven supplier.

No matter how you slice it the situation is the fault of directv. Either directlly or indirectly their decisions caused this. It IS unacceptable in my head and I'm not even effected.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> Seriously... do you think that?
> Then why haven't we seen the comcast one yet?
> I mean, what would the difference really be between what TiVos where already out there, and what Comcast would did.
> 
> ...


Earl- I'm amazed you seem to be such an apologist for Directv here.

First off- their are rumors (might have been posted here or maybe at dbsforums) that tivo had/has an mpeg4 prototype.

Second- there's somewhat of a difference of writing code for a box you design and build and trying to mash your code onto a box that someone else made so it's no stretch that it would take longer to create the code for the moto boxes then for a box tivo built themselves.

last- tivo has had working sd directv boixes for years and an mpeg2 hd directv box for a while, NDS had nothing that worked with directv, so surely tivo would have had a the ability to beat nds to the punch since they had much of the directv system worked out.

I find it laughable to think that Tivo couldn't have had an mpeg4 hd box done before NDS.


----------



## dmunjal (Dec 16, 2002)

dmunjal said:


> I live in SF Bay Area and I would like to continue to receive the SF HD locals on my H20 while receiving the LA HD Feeds on my two HD Tivos.
> 
> I think it makes sense to "move" but where? I can't move to LA because I will lose the spot beams for the HD locals in SF, right?
> 
> BTW, I can't get OTA and believe me I've tried.


Any suggestions on cities to "move" to in Northern California that would still receive SF HD locals via MPEG4 and are outside OTA reach to qualify for DNS? Or should I just "move" to LA. It seems that all MPEG2 HD Locals will be going away soon so there may be no alternative but wait for the new HD DVR. Sigh.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> Earl- I'm amazed you seem to be such an apologist for Directv here.


When it comes to this argument for... TiVo having an MPEG4 box out...
Probably "more" so, then other times.

I just think it would have taken a lot longer then people thought it would have.

It is more likely that a TiVo powered one would could have been done..
But there is not enough variables to make that conclusion...
I mean if you where building an updated box... would you take the time to correct past issues, and prepare the software/hardware to last for the next 5+ years?

That could have ultimately lead to a new design and major overhaul of the software..
Either way.... it is one of those cases of we will never know.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> When it comes to this argument for... TiVo having an MPEG4 box out...
> Probably "more" so, then other times.
> 
> I just think it would have taken a lot longer then people thought it would have.
> ...


some interesting points- thing is NDS is NOT giving us an updated box either (at least not feature wise)- basically if the R15 is any indicator (and those in the know seem to believe it is) we are getting a box roughly equal to 5 year old tivo boxes. Tivo clearly could have come up with that box by now.

Also- what about ucentric- why did that go sour? Directv announce publiclay at a past CES that would be in our hands months ago. So either they lied or made some really stupid choices believing ucentric. WHich one?


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

I don't know what happen with Ucentric... I know right after the CES announcement, Ucentric was purchased by Motorola...

That is about the depths of what I know on the Ucentric mix with the current HMC development.


As for the R15... really depends on how you look at it.
What the box is today... sure, there is not a "whole" lot of difference feature wise as compared to todays DTivos. But when the VOD features, and the Interactive features increase... then there wil be differences. Regardless how you want to look at DirecTVToGo... TiVoToGo is not on the DTivos. 

I have asked over at DBSTalk... what else do you want the box to do? 
Seriously... what else do you want these DVR/Receivers to do? (not just specificaly the R15/DTivo... DVRs in general)


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> Had they even had the sense to realize NDS sucks when they sat down with the big 4 and set up the deals for O&O stations, they could have put in a provision that DVR customers wouldn't get screwed when NDS failed to deliver.


You seem to think that the networks and the local stations want you to have a DVR. I can't speak for everyone, but one of my favorite features is the forward-skip, which is entirely opposite to what the broadcasters want - they want me to watch those commercials, since that is what pays the bills.

The only ones who want the DVR are us. I know a LOT of DirecTV customers, and the vast majority of them do not have a DVR, even many who have HDTV sets. I suspect that the number of customers who have HDTV, AND a DVR, and are in one of the LIL markets represent a small (if vocal) part of the DirecTV customer base, and the number who will actually leave is a small percentage of that.

Basically, we are not a high priority here yet.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> I don't know what happen with Ucentric... I know right after the CES announcement, Ucentric was purchased by Motorola...
> 
> That is about the depths of what I know on the Ucentric mix with the current HMC development.
> 
> ...


well if the R15 today is the same then why could the MPEG4 Tivo be the same right now what would they need to add- the current box has USB, the series 2 platform can get ethernet added, besides a new MPEG4 DVR on a chip and new tuners what major changes would be made? The came out with the 'series 2.5' units in less time I *THINK* and that was a farily decent MOBO change.

If uncentric was the way to go then NDS could have bought them. Or at least they should have had a contract and forced motorolla to deliver the goods.

What do I want? Personally I wont a box that is more flecible with the content. That allows me to gather content from other sources- like my broadband internet. That allows me to move the content I have reocrded to other DVR's and maybe even portable devices (laptops or maybe handhlep players). These are things availible today from Tivo and even Dish.

Speaking of Dish- how is it that 'lowly' dish came up with an MPEG4 DVR some months ago? And big bad "world leader" NDS cant figure it out?

I just feel like there's just sooo many reasons that Directv's lack of a working MPEG4 DVR at this time is wrong that I almost think it's crazy to defend directv.

JMHO of course....

everyone is intentled to their own


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Richard Chalk said:


> You seem to think that the networks and the local stations want you to have a DVR. I can't speak for everyone, but one of my favorite features is the forward-skip, which is entirely opposite to what the broadcasters want - they want me to watch those commercials, since that is what pays the bills.
> 
> .


that's a very good point- never though of it before. Could be Directv tried but the big 4 balked.



Richard Chalk said:


> The only ones who want the DVR are us. I know a LOT of DirecTV customers, and the vast majority of them do not have a DVR, even many who have HDTV sets. I suspect that the number of customers who have HDTV, AND a DVR, and are in one of the LIL markets represent a small (if vocal) part of the DirecTV customer base, and the number who will actually leave is a small percentage of that.
> 
> Basically, we are not a high priority here yet.


I agree that DVR's aren't the majority. Although a belive they are a sizable block with Directv - last i sat down to calculate it like a year ago they were equal to liked 15% of all subs- might be higher now. I'd guess for HD it is similar. That said the DVR's dramatically slash churn so they are certainly worth having. Forcing anyone to move to cable for a DVR only makes it tougher to get that person back later. Directv even says they are reaching the point of saturation and need to focus on retention and making more from their current subs. THis surely isn't the way.

But I really think this is not about being a low priority. In my mind it's about incompetance plane and simple. When DISH can figure out an mpeg4 DVR, it should be doable for Directv.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

ebonovic said:


> what else do you want the box to do?
> Seriously... what else do you want these DVR/Receivers to do? (not just specificaly the R15/DTivo... DVRs in general)


Everything my directivo can do... So far there is NO dvr that can fufill this requirement.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> I have asked over at DBSTalk... what else do you want the box to do?
> Seriously... what else do you want these DVR/Receivers to do? (not just specificaly the R15/DTivo... DVRs in general)


Thats easy, U want a satellite card solution. I also want a PCI express satellite card solution. Direct TV should like this as they could sell them everywhere including Dell/HP/even Apple. In addition to having the marketing power of all the mahor electronic manufacturers. The cell phone companies are not 100% that model but they sure use the diverse features of the phones to encourage signups.

In addition look how fast the new phones change generations. In this market it seems like its every two years vs every few months.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

zalusky said:


> Thats easy, U want a satellite card solution. I also want a PCI express satellite card solution. Direct TV should like this as they could sell them everywhere including Dell/HP/even Apple. In addition to having the marketing power of all the mahor electronic manufacturers. The cell phone companies are not 100% that model but they sure use the diverse features of the phones to encourage signups.
> 
> In addition look how fast the new phones change generations. In this market it seems like its every two years vs every few months.


Actually they have announced a partnership with Microsoft and Intel, to create just that... a PCI Tuner card for DirecTV.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> I have asked over at DBSTalk... what else do you want the box to do?
> Seriously... what else do you want these DVR/Receivers to do? (not just specificaly the R15/DTivo... DVRs in general)


gosh i'm so simple compared to what others want.

this is all I'd want.....I want my current HDtivo (or new machines) to

1. never lose guide data and have the dreaded not available message whereby if you go away for a weekend you miss everything

2. be as fast as my T60 was in regards to setting new recordings ....even while 2 HD channels are being recorded....

3. speed up reordering of SP

4. no crashes or GSODs 

5 faster guide

if no one can solve this.....then there's no point in building any new box with additional features that no doubt will make it more error prone


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> But in the same regards..... you really where looking at new hardware for a DTiVo MPEG-4
> 
> New Motherboard design, tuners, ect.... different Manufacturer maybe.... not like you could just pluck items off the 3+ year old (design wise) HR10-250 and drop new ones on their easily...


Absolutely wrong. You were simply looking at the addition of an MPEG4 hardware decoder (and the ability to receive/tune Ka band). All the HD Tivo does today is record the stream and play it back. MPEG-4 is a processor intensive operation, so it needs a dedicated decoder.

Very very little work to go from the current HD Tivo to an MPEG-4 Ka HD Tivo.

DirecTV knew what their agreements would result in. They are now in the position of taking capabilities away from customers because of no MPEG-4 DVR. They had lots of options to avoid this:
1) Release the MPEG-4 DVR before forcing this action
2) Put the SpaceWays sats in Ku/MPEG-2 mode
3) Minor patch to the HD Tivo to receive/tune Ka, and broadcast in MPEG-2
4) Offer MPEG-4 HD Tivo

And I'm sure others. They chose to do nothing, and take service away from customers, very likely their higher-end customers. Dumb, dumb move on their part.

Earl - You have become more and more a DirecTV defender, even in light of obvious customer screw-ups on their part, like that posted by the OP. This is 100% DirecTV's fault and issue - I'm not clear why you would think otherwise?


----------



## tjbay (Jul 27, 2006)

minorthr said:


> Do you have HD locals with D*. Reason I ask is I do not and I still have not received this letter. If my channels suddenly disappear before a new mpeg 4 HD box comes out I'm done with D*


So can anyone say for sure that if you dont get your locals in HD, although available, and are waiting for the new HD DVR and have not gotten this letter that you will not lose the East/West coast feeds???


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Here is the update:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=309256


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

AbMagFab said:


> Absolutely wrong. You were simply looking at the addition of an MPEG4 hardware decoder (and the ability to receive/tune Ka band). All the HD Tivo does today is record the stream and play it back. MPEG-4 is a processor intensive operation, so it needs a dedicated decoder.
> 
> Very very little work to go from the current HD Tivo to an MPEG-4 Ka HD Tivo.
> 
> ...


1)... there has been an update to that "scenerio", they are no longer turning of HD-DNS for HR10-250 owners
2)... I don't know why they can't do that, but... 
3) I was under the impression (from past posts by Doug and others) that the tuners in the HR10-250 where physically not able to tune in KA... that a software patch wouldn't work for that.
4) I don't know...

A DirecTV Defender... well I guess not intentionally... I just try to point the "other" side to the mostly negative posts lately...


----------



## tjbay (Jul 27, 2006)

ebonovic said:


> Here is the update:


Thanks for the update i have been looking for this answer for days...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> ..
> 3) I was under the impression (from past posts by Doug and others) that the tuners in the HR10-250 where physically not able to tune in KA... that a software patch wouldn't work for that....


not really. LNB's convert ku or ka to an intermediate frequency anyhow. So the box doesn't know KA from Ku.

Ka apparently uses differnt sized transponders and the tuner in anythign intended for ku wouldn't be able to see the whole width of a ka transponder. But apparently DISH has used Ka in the past just fine by converting at the lnb and only using part of the ka transponders to make them match the size of Ku.

The spaceways are using all kinds of new stuff besides Ka though. New encoding (8psk I think it's called) and also mpeg4. But they could have used them anyway they wanted.

I suspect they just assumed NDS could deliver and none of this would be an issue. So when the choice was made to go all new NOW with the spaceways rather then use older technology and upgrade later it made sense to go all out now.

But alas- NDS is incompetent and screwed directv.


----------

