# Philips PVRs ‘Powered By TiVo’ Planned For Fall



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

Philips PVRs 'Powered By TiVo' Planned For Fall | HD Guru



> The Philips and TiVo brands will be reunited this Fall on a line of Personal Video Recorders (PVRs) designed for use by consumers looking to avoid pricey cable or satellite TV subscription services.
> 
> An executive with P&F USA, which licenses the Philips brand for the sale and marketing of TVs and video-related products in North America, confirmed that a Philips-branded "concept" PVR the company showed at its booth in the Renaissance Hotel during the recent CES 2017 in Las Vegas should be coming to market this September, under the name "Philips HD Personal Video Recorder Powered by TiVo."
> 
> ...


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

Not a lot here-- 2 tuner OTA with 3 possible models to differentiate capacity. No mention of streaming apps, 4K/HDR/, etc.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

> The concept product on display at CES was a 2-tuner TiVo PVR equipped to receive and record free over-the-air broadcast television programs


Is the number of tuners really what drives the price of these boxes? I can't imagine 4 tuners would be all that much more expensive. And 2 tuners means you'd need multiple DVRs, since it wouldn't be compatible with the Mini (even if Phillips were to produce their own).


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

Going out on a total guess-- more powerful CPU needed to handle 4 vs 2 MPEG2 streams? So actual savings could be in slower/older SoC?

Edit: also how popular is the Mini in OTA homes? TiVo probably has some good data here looking at Roamio OTA owner accounts.
Personally we only watch OTA in living room, a secondary TV is available but with an old Roku stick.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

True, could be a very low-end model; 2-tuners, no OTT streaming apps capability. Just a DVR. It'll be interesting to see how it's priced, since $400 max nets an All-In Roamio OTA (at least, for now).


----------



## pfiagra (Oct 13, 2014)

krkaufman said:


> Is the number of tuners really what drives the price of these boxes? I can't imagine 4 tuners would be all that much more expensive. And 2 tuners means you'd need multiple DVRs, since it wouldn't be compatible with the Mini (even if Phillips were to produce their own).


Perhaps Philips is wanting to ensure a strong OTA signal.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

Great. A TiVo-like object which will never get any bugs fixed or software updated. Abandonware the day you buy it .


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

tomhorsley said:


> Great. A TiVo-like object which will never get any bugs fixed or software updated. Abandonware the day you buy it .


I guess it depends on how Philips and TiVo have structured their deal--my hunch is, there will be no issue. I have a Toshiba Series 2 TiVo--TiVo Series 2 software in a box from Toshiba (which includes a DVD player/recorder), with a TiVo peanut remote. It's pretty nice, and I've loved having the DVD player/recorder fully integrated in the box and TiVo user interface/remote (the remote is the standard TiVo remote, with additional DVD player buttons)--and greatly miss it in subsequent TiVo models. I've had little need to contact Toshiba on the hardware (I can't recall the last time I did), and TiVo provides the upkeep/updates on the software and my TiVo lifetime subscription (and customer service/support for both as well, the best I recall--I can't recall the last time I had a need to contact TiVo, either)--my box even is listed on my TiVo account page, alongside my Roamio boxes.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

I found this part interesting:
"
P&F's TiVo PVR was showed to potential retail buyers at CES to gauge interest in carrying the product. The product was listed as incorporating a full-functioning TiVo programming guide as well as 802.11ac Wi-Fi networking to distribute playback of recordings. The company listed the possibility of three versions of the product, each differentiated primarily by hard-drive capacity. Other features and pricing (including pricing for the EPG data service) are being determined.
"
"full-functioning TiVo programming guide"? Where do I get one of those?


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

In my dreams Philips would add a UHD drive, like the already small BDP7501, to help me on my eternal quest for a single input...


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

JoeKustra said:


> "full-functioning TiVo programming guide"? Where do I get one of those?


You are bad, very bad. 

But there may be further reason, apart from marketing, to use that language. My Toshiba Series 2 TiVo was a bit of an experiment for TiVo and came with a free TiVo subscription to what was called "TiVo Basic"--it allowed the box to act like a DVR, but with Season Passes and other "intelligent" TIVO DVR technology grayed out. As part of this, the TiVo Guide was only for 2 days of data at a time, if I recall correctly.

An interesting approach to getting people in the door, and then having them "upgrade" to the full TiVo experience by purchasing a full subscription--and I don't think that I would have purchased a TiVo at the time otherwise (the cost of a TiVo subscription was an impediment to me). I ultimately purchased a lifetime subscription for the box, because TiVo was eliminating lifetime at the time and I thought that I should get in before the door closed. But for that development, I've wondered how long I would have continued with the free TiVo Basic service alone.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

I'd missed this part...


JoeKustra said:


> "as well as 802.11ac Wi-Fi networking to distribute playback of recordings"


... so it appears the Phillips model would need to be closer to the BOLT than the Roamio OTA, a BOLT OTA.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

krkaufman said:


> I'd missed this part...
> 
> ... so it appears the Phillips model would need to be closer to the BOLT than the Roamio OTA, a BOLT OTA.


It would seem that way. But if it supports streaming over WiFi, that would be a nice thing.


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

Thoughts on Roamio OTA being discontinued with this release? TiVo wants out of the hardware side of things anyway right?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Really not enough info on the finial product to comment on it yet. But I will comment on 4 versus 2 tuners. Before I bought my base Roamio back in 9/2013 I had 3 dual tuner TiVo DVRs used for recording OTA and really did not believe it was a very big deal having 4 tuners in one unit. I was very wrong, having 4 tuners in one unit is way better than having 2 dual tuner units. 

When we see what this is and what the pricing is I am sure I will have an opinion until then I will just hope it provides something interesting.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

krkaufman said:


> Is the number of tuners really what drives the price of these boxes? I can't imagine 4 tuners would be all that much more expensive.


You do realize that different products have different amounts of profit? It could even be the same hardware with the extra tuners disabled via jumper or a minor software change.


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

Philips PVR will probably be better built and have more features users want. No real details have been released yet. Phillips wants to make money so they have an interest in getting it right. Remember Philips is building this to sell, licensing the Tivo guide. Tivo builds PVR's to sell Tivo service, so will build the cheapest thing they can contract out.

The only thing interesting in this release is "802.11ac Wi-Fi networking to distribute playback of recordings". Maybe it will be able to play shows on your network devices, Ipad etc.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

There are already 2 Tuner DVRs for Antenna, not really any need for another. But there is not much competition for 4+ tuner OTA's.


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

The concept model is a 2 tuner. I'm sure the final product will have more tuners. 

"Exact features, model numbers and pricing will be announced shortly, the company told us. The concept product on display at CES was a 2-tuner TiVo PVR equipped to receive and record free over-the-air broadcast television programs, similar to TiVo’s Roamio PVRs."


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I'd be fine with a 2-tuner OTA DVR (for the right price) to be honest. I don't know when (if ever) was the last time I recorded more than two concurrent OTA shows. That said, I am shifting more and more of my viewing from TiVo recordings to ad-free Hulu as I find the latter a more pleasant way to watch...


----------



## steinbch (Nov 23, 2007)

Couldn't "powered by TiVo" just mean that it is using TiVo's Rovi guide data?! I'd think that this could mean that the UI as a whole will not be built by TiVo or based on the current HDUI or new Hydra UI. I definitely don't see the desire to deal with a box built and designed by Phillips that merely relies on TiVo guide data.


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

steinbch said:


> Couldn't "powered by TiVo" just mean that it is using TiVo's Rovi guide data?! I'd think that this could mean that the UI as a whole will not be built by TiVo or based on the current HDUI or new Hydra UI. I definitely don't see the desire to deal with a box built and designed by Phillips that merely relies on TiVo guide data.


I don't think so-- all the cable companies use the same "Powered by TiVo" marketing for boxes that are fully in TiVo software/UI, etc. Also we know the new TiVo wants out of hardware design side of the business so that's probably how we're back to a Philips piece of hardware.

My hope is Philips brings something to the hardware that sets it apart, appealing, etc.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

Is the name a joke? Good grief. "Philips HD Personal Video Recorder Powered by TiVo"


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

I wouldn't have bought an OTA TIVO with two tuners, not enough for OTA viewing. If you are supplementing another receiver (not just another Tivo receiver) it might be ok but not for the primary way to record OTA. Friday night for instance we are recording on all four tuners, Sundays night is often at least three and the fourth for live Football, or Baseball etc. We can watch live on the TV itself of course, but already do on Sunday night and sports has to be on a receiver where you can rewind etc.. Two tuners is non starter in today's world.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

cybergrimes said:


> My hope is Philips brings something to the hardware that sets it apart, appealing, etc.


It's certainly possible--my Toshiba Series 2 TiVo with DVD player/recorder brought that great option in an attractive packaging, which I've dearly appreciated (and still do). This 3rd-party option _could_ bring further consumer-friendly innovation.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

tampa8 said:


> Two tuners is non starter in today's world.


I never would have thought that, in my OTA TiVo world. But, 4 tuners is _so_ nice . . . .


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

All this means is that they may be have licensed a few of TiVo's patents. We really don't mean what "Powerd by TiVo" really means. In fact, the DVR maker may have licensed tech from OTHER companies to make their DVR. Most likely using guide data by TiVo, and this effort is a way for TiVo to get the TiVo "brand" in the homes outside of its own TiVo products. It's pretty clear that this new DVR is nowhere near as feture rich nor even close to a real TiVo such as Roamio or Bolt.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I wouldn't assume that for all of TiVo's "partnering" with 3rd parties. In the Series 2 days, TiVo's licensing to a 3rd party such as Humax or Toshiba was for the whole she-bang, the other company simply being the one to build the box. And in fact, TiVo sometimes even modded its system for the other company--in the case of Toshiba, adding DVD operations to the TiVo interface and remote and adding a free "TiVo Basic" mode to the box's operation. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see TiVo following similarly now, including based on TiVo/Rovi's statement that it would like to leave the physical world to others.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

cybergrimes said:


> Going out on a total guess-- more powerful CPU needed to handle 4 vs 2 MPEG2 streams? So actual savings could be in slower/older SoC?


Even though they can record 4 channels, they only decode 1 at a time. Even bottom of the line chips can support 4 in and 1 out. The only real cost to a 4 tuner is the tuner chips. AFAIK there are only 2 tuner ATSC chips available on the market, so they need two tuner chips and internal splitter and amplification hardware to get 4 tuners. That could add enough to the cost to make it prohibitive.


----------



## alexb (Jan 4, 2003)

tampa8 said:


> Two tuners is non starter in today's world.


There are plenty of people where two tuners will do just fine on an entry level device, that's the market Phillips are going after.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

alexb said:


> There are plenty of people where two tuners will do just fine on an entry level device, that's the market Phillips are going after.


Yeah. Tablo seems to be doing fine and they offer a 2-tuner (as well as a 4-tuner) OTA DVR. Their upcoming add-on solution for Android TV will also feature a dual tuner. For a lot of non-cable subscribers, OTA is just one part of their TV mix and, given the rise of streaming, not even the most important part. Assuming I keep Hulu, I think I'd be fine with a single OTA tuner. All I'm relying on my TiVo for these days is to record the NBC Nightly News (which I think I could actually stream soon after airing on my Apple TV if I wanted), Life in Pieces (and any other thing I may want to see on CBS), and Nature (and another other thing I may want to see on PBS). Pretty much everything I care about is covered by Hulu, generally with equal or better HD picture quality (although only stereo sound). And I could actually watch CBS stuff ad-free for free via Plex Channels, albeit with much softer HD picture quality. PBS makes their new stuff available for a week or two after airing on their PBS app but access gets spotty beyond that unless you contribute $60 or more per year and get their Passport feature.

Since getting my new LG TV, I've split my OTA line to run it both into my TiVo Roamio OTA and directly into my TV. The TV has a feature called ChannelPlus that adds a bunch of free live streaming internet channels (some of them crap, some of them so-so, a few that are good) and integrates them with OTA channels in the TV's native program guide and channel up/down. When I'm just channel surfing to graze on bits of live TV before settling in to watch "appointment TV," I'm as likely to find interesting content in the internet channels as I am the OTA channels. The downside is that I can't pause or rewind live TV like I can with the TiVo.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Having read the above, I agree, but still find multiple tuners such a joy--with digital sub-channels, I find so much more available content on OTA nowadays, and I even can find multiple shows on my PBS station that I'd like to watch, on at the same time. (Although it's so nice that my PBS station often will re-run content overnight.)


----------



## alexb (Jan 4, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> Having read the above, I agree, but still find multiple tuners such a joy--with digital sub-channels, I find so much more available content on OTA nowadays, and I even can find multiple shows on my PBS station that I'd like to watch, on at the same time. (Although it's so nice that my PBS station often will re-run content overnight.)


Oh we all agree multiple tuners are a joy, it's why I had my ceton 6 tuner in my media center (and just once it did actually record 6 shows at the same time). But one shouldn't project ones own experiences as 'that's what everyone wants or needs'. This is the first rule of good product management.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

But we can say there is competition for 2 tuner whereas there is very little for 4.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> For a lot of non-cable subscribers, OTA is just one part of their TV mix and, given the rise of streaming, not even the most important part. Assuming I keep Hulu, I think I'd be fine with a single OTA tuner.


I would not characterize OTA as 'just one part' of the non-cable solution. Most cord cutters rely primarily or exclusively on OTA. New sub-channels and super channels provide a broad selection of programming via antenna. With the Reverse Auction and ATSC 3.0 foundering, I expect OTA to accelerate. Personally, we have, at times, subscribed to Netflix, Prime, Vue, and (currently) DirecTV Now. The DirecTV Now package includes 110 'cable channels' for $35/month (for early adopters). You get a lot of news, sports, entertainment, music, and entertainment. We've had it for a month now and I'm not sure we will keep it. There is only so much Tiny Homes I can take. Local sports are blacked out. There are a LOT of ad supported programs on Pay TV and way too many infomercials.

On the other hand, I think Vudu and Crackle have done a very good job with ad supported apps.



NashGuy said:


> Since getting my new LG TV, I've split my OTA line to run it both into my TiVo Roamio OTA and directly into my TV. The TV has a feature called ChannelPlus that adds a bunch of free live streaming internet channels (some of them crap, some of them so-so, a few that are good) and integrates them with OTA channels in the TV's native program guide and channel up/down. When I'm just channel surfing to graze on bits of live TV before settling in to watch "appointment TV," I'm as likely to find interesting content in the internet channels as I am the OTA channels. The downside is that I can't pause or rewind live TV like I can with the TiVo.


Kind of like the CMTV model. Interesting and appealing, but without listing the specific program data int he EPG, not much value. I find it interesting that you, as a TiVo customer can enjoy television without the vaunted TiVo GUI. Most TiVo enthusiasts lose their minds when I suggest that many cord cutters are happy with a TV and an antenna.

As for the new DVRs, it's difficult to judge with 'prices and features TBA'. Remember those Magnavox DVRs from CES 2016? Let's hope these materialize into an inexpensive TiVo-_like_ DVR lacking upscale features aimed at the DVR+. Maybe with a permanent <$200 price.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Most TiVo enthusiasts lose their minds when I suggest that many cord cutters are happy with a TV and an antenna.


I refuse to believe that hardly anyone is "happy" being forced to watch TV with 16+ minutes per hour of commercials and on the broadcasters schedule. I can believe that many people will "acceptable" the above because the price is right. But there is a big difference between finding something acceptable and being happy about it.

Regarding being a TiVo enthusiast, I can given you a 100% assurance that I am an enthusiastic fan of being able to watch a TV show when I want and with minimal commercial disruption. I am likely going to be a fan/enthusiast of any device that can allow me to do that.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wizwor said:


> I would not characterize OTA as 'just one part' of the non-cable solution. Most cord cutters rely primarily or exclusively on OTA. New sub-channels and super channels provide a broad selection of programming via antenna.


I am continually amazed at what the "sub-channel scene" has brought forth and brings each new day, taking my earlier antenna TV into the realms of a "cable light" (albeit perhaps a _very_ cable light; and I'm in a large urban area). Combine that with the TiVo's time-shifting and ability to skip commercials, and I have considerable options without any other services. Of course, there always will be specific shows from specific broadcasters--that always has been the case.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> I refuse to believe that hardly anyone is "happy" being forced to watch TV with 16+ minutes per hour of commercials and on the broadcasters schedule. I can believe that many people will "acceptable" the above because the price is right. But there is a big difference between finding something acceptable and being happy about it.
> 
> Regarding being a TiVo enthusiast, I can given you a 100% assurance that I am an enthusiastic fan of being able to watch a TV show when I want and with minimal commercial disruption. I am likely going to be a fan/enthusiast of any device that can allow me to do that.


Believe what you want. 17 Percent of U.S. Households Are OTA-Only. My real life experience is very similar. Over the last three years, I have had a lot of work done on and around my home. A lot of people walked past my 'infrastructure' and most had something to say about it. Not one single person owned or had a desire to own an OTA DVR. I would guess that the objective, for most, of cord cutting is cost cutting and DVRs only theoretically accomplish that. At some level, I suspect that simplicity plays a part. A lot of cord cutters grew up with a blinking 12:00 on their VCR.

If you want to nitpick words, maybe we can say these people are content with 'being forced to watch TV with 16+ minutes per hour of commercials and on the broadcasters schedule.'


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Mikeguy said:


> I am continually amazed at what the "sub-channel scene" has brought forth and brings each new day, taking my earlier antenna TV into the realms of a "cable light" (albeit perhaps a _very_ cable light; and I'm in a large urban area). Combine that with the TiVo's time-shifting and ability to skip commercials, and I have considerable options without any other services. Of course, there always will be specific shows from specific broadcasters--that always has been the case.


I prefer some of the sub-channel content to anything on cable. When I turn on my television, it is usually tuned to Heroes and Icons. Crime dramas, westerns, Star Trek, Xena, and Hercules. Awesome television. The PBS sub-channels Create, Explore, and World are great. Decades, MeTV, GetTV, Escape, Grit, LAFF, Antenna TV, BUZZER, Cozi, The Works, Comet, BounceTV, ION, and ION Life are all terrific.

My in-laws have no cable or internet. They have an antenna and a CM DVR+. One of their grandchildren asked when they got cable after surfing the DVR+. These are great times we live in. Hopefully, the Philips DVRs will make things even better.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I refuse to believe that hardly anyone is "happy" being forced to watch TV with 16+ minutes per hour of commercials and on the broadcasters schedule. I can believe that many people will "acceptable" the above because the price is right. But there is a big difference between finding something acceptable and being happy about it.
> 
> Regarding being a TiVo enthusiast, I can given you a 100% assurance that I am an enthusiastic fan of being able to watch a TV show when I want and with minimal commercial disruption. I am likely going to be a fan/enthusiast of any device that can allow me to do that.


I suspect that the people who are "happy", or even find it "acceptable" have never had it any other way. After having a DVR, I can't imagine watching TV without a way to FF past the commercials. Heck, after Netflix, even a DVR, which still requires me to hit the FF button, seems a bit clunky.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Believe what you want. 17 Percent of U.S. Households Are OTA-Only. My real life experience is very similar. Over the last three years, I have had a lot of work done on and around my home. A lot of people walked past my 'infrastructure' and most had something to say about it. Not one single person owned or had a desire to own an OTA DVR. I would guess that the objective, for most, of cord cutting is cost cutting and DVRs only theoretically accomplish that. At some level, I suspect that simplicity plays a part. A lot of cord cutters grew up with a blinking 12:00 on their VCR.
> 
> If you want to nitpick words, maybe we can say these people are content with 'being forced to watch TV with 16+ minutes per hour of commercials and on the broadcasters schedule.'


Times can be a stretch for many (have you looked at your monthly health insurance bill lately?), and buying a time-shifting, multi-tuner device like a TiVo for $400 MSRP can be a "real" consideration. And then you need time to watch the recorded shows between your 2 jobs. There is a reason why the last U.S. election occurred.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wizwor said:


> I prefer some of the sub-channel content to anything on cable. When I turn on my television, it is usually tuned to Heroes and Icons. Crime dramas, westerns, Star Trek, Xena, and Hercules. Awesome television.


Just recently discovered Heroes and Icons as well--perhaps it's newer in my area. Good, fun programming to escape to. Plus, every single Star Trek series, from beginning to end. 


allan said:


> Heck, after Netflix, even a DVR, which still requires me to hit the FF button, seems a bit clunky.


When I'm watching a show and then can't SkipMode the commercials, I find myself getting irritated nowadays.  (And then I tell myself to get over it.  )


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Believe what you want. 17 Percent of U.S. Households Are OTA-Only. My real life experience is very similar. Over the last three years, I have had a lot of work done on and around my home. A lot of people walked past my 'infrastructure' and most had something to say about it. Not one single person owned or had a desire to own an OTA DVR. I would guess that the objective, for most, of cord cutting is cost cutting and DVRs only theoretically accomplish that. At some level, I suspect that simplicity plays a part. A lot of cord cutters grew up with a blinking 12:00 on their VCR.
> 
> If you want to nitpick words, maybe we can say these people are content with 'being forced to watch TV with 16+ minutes per hour of commercials and on the broadcasters schedule.'


I have no issue with your views on OTA TV. I am OTA only and have been for about the last 10 years, in fact out of my 59 years I had pay TV for less then 10 of them.

What I have issue with is your assertion that large numbers of people don't value being able to control when they can view a TV show and how intrusive the commercials are. Given that the majority of house holds either have a DVR, and/or use some form of VoD it appears to me that people do value being able to control their viewing experience. How much people are willing (and able) to pay for this control is certainly variable, but it is clear large numbers of people are willing to pay something.

But yes I still know people who watch TV without a DVR or any VoD service, (pay TV & OTA users) but everyone of them complains about how they hate the commercials and complain when they have to miss one of their shows, they are just not willing to pay for a DVR. Of course several of them mostly watch PBS and get allot of DVDs from the library.

And of course if someone is (or has) "cutting the cord" because they basically don't watch TV and just have an antenna connect to a TV in case they might want to watch something (and yes I also have a few friends like this) then spending money on anything else certainly doesn't make any sense.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> But yes I still know people who watch TV without a DVR or any VoD service, (pay TV & OTA users) but everyone of them complains about how they hate the commercials and complain when they have to miss one of their shows, they are just not willing to pay for a DVR. Of course several of them mostly watch PBS and get allot of DVDs from the library.


That's my mom, except for the PBS & DVD stuff. She doesn't have a DVR because she's che-, er I mean thrifty, and also highly techophobic. But she hates commercials as much as the next person.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> What I have issue with is your assertion that large numbers of people don't value being able to control when they can view a TV show and how intrusive the commercials are. Given that the majority of house holds either have a DVR, and/or use some form of VoD it appears to me that people do value being able to control their viewing experience. How much people are willing (and able) to pay for this control is certainly variable, but it is clear large numbers of people are willing to pay something.
> 
> But yes I still know people who watch TV without a DVR or any VoD service, (pay TV & OTA users) but everyone of them complains about how they hate the commercials and complain when they have to miss one of their shows, they are just not willing to pay for a DVR. Of course several of them mostly watch PBS and get allot of DVDs from the library.
> 
> And of course if someone is (or has) "cutting the cord" because they basically don't watch TV and just have an antenna connect to a TV in case they might want to watch something (and yes I also have a few friends like this) then spending money on anything else certainly doesn't make any sense.


Tivo ended the second quarter of 2016 with 7.4m subscribers. According to Nielsen's National Television Household Universe Estimates, there are 118.4 million TV homes in the U.S. for the 2016-17 TV season. If OTA-_only_ subscribers constitute 17% of the 118.4m households, then there are 20.1m OTA-only subscribers. Subtract the 7.4m TiVo subscribers and 12.7m OTA-only subscribers who do not own a TiVo. All the Channel Master, Magnavox, Brightview, and Tablo subscribers plus Windows Media Server and MythTV households, you are not talking about more than a few million OTA-only households. The math strongly suggests that many millions are simply running coax from antenna to television.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Believe what you want. 17 Percent of U.S. Households Are OTA-Only. My real life experience is very similar. Over the last three years, I have had a lot of work done on and around my home. A lot of people walked past my 'infrastructure' and most had something to say about it. Not one single person owned or had a desire to own an OTA DVR. I would guess that the objective, for most, of cord cutting is cost cutting and DVRs only theoretically accomplish that. At some level, I suspect that simplicity plays a part. A lot of cord cutters grew up with a blinking 12:00 on their VCR.
> 
> If you want to nitpick words, maybe we can say these people are content with 'being forced to watch TV with 16+ minutes per hour of commercials and on the broadcasters schedule.'


The wording of the article isn't totally clear but the math indicates that the 17% of U.S. households mentioned in the article include both those that rely solely on OTA TV for their video entertainment as well as those that use OTA+streaming.

The article states that 25% of U.S. households have neither cable nor satellite. That 25% breaks down this way, per the article:


3% have no TV (and therefore don't use OTA TV, although some of those households may stream video via computers and mobile devices)
6% use only streaming video (no OTA) -- note that some of these households may also be captured in the 3% figure who have no TV
17% use OTA as their only means of "television reception" -- but I would say that many (most?) of these households are also streaming video. We know that a lot of cord-cutters do OTA+streaming and since such a category isn't specifically broken out in the article, those households must be subsumed within the 17% figure.

Add up 3% + 6% + 17% and you have 26%. This could be caused by rounding errors or it may be that up to 1% of U.S. households are in the overlap between the first two categories: they have no TV in the house but they watch streaming video on non-TV devices.

So while the article does tell us that an important and growing chunk of U.S. households watch OTA TV, we don't really know from the article if, among cord-cutters (those without cable or satellite TV), total OTA viewers outnumber total streaming viewers, much less the number of hours each type of video is viewed.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. Tablo seems to be doing fine and they offer a 2-tuner (as well as a 4-tuner) OTA DVR. Their upcoming add-on solution for Android TV will also feature a dual tuner. For a lot of non-cable subscribers, OTA is just one part of their TV mix and, given the rise of streaming, not even the most important part. Assuming I keep Hulu, I think I'd be fine with a single OTA tuner. All I'm relying on my TiVo for these days is to record the NBC Nightly News (which I think I could actually stream soon after airing on my Apple TV if I wanted), Life in Pieces (and any other thing I may want to see on CBS), and Nature (and another other thing I may want to see on PBS). Pretty much everything I care about is covered by Hulu, generally with equal or better HD picture quality (although only stereo sound). And I could actually watch CBS stuff ad-free for free via Plex Channels, albeit with much softer HD picture quality. PBS makes their new stuff available for a week or two after airing on their PBS app but access gets spotty beyond that unless you contribute $60 or more per year and get their Passport feature.
> 
> Since getting my new LG TV, I've split my OTA line to run it both into my TiVo Roamio OTA and directly into my TV. The TV has a feature called ChannelPlus that adds a bunch of free live streaming internet channels (some of them crap, some of them so-so, a few that are good) and integrates them with OTA channels in the TV's native program guide and channel up/down. When I'm just channel surfing to graze on bits of live TV before settling in to watch "appointment TV," I'm as likely to find interesting content in the internet channels as I am the OTA channels. The downside is that I can't pause or rewind live TV like I can with the TiVo.


If I have a show that I recorded and also have available on Hulu or Netflix, I much prefer to watch my recorded one over the streaming one. The skip mode button has removed the advantage commercial free streaming used to have over having to 30 second skip through commercials and I much prefer the trick play features and responsiveness on the Tivo vs. Netflix, Hulu or Amazon. I was just watching Catastrophe on Amazon last night and I frequently had to rewind a bit to make out what some of the characters were saying because of their accent. (Also, the sound quality didn't seem all that great.) It was really annoying to rewind, wait, press play, wait, and then hope you got to the right spot. I much prefer hitting 8 second rewind once or twice. It's near instant.

Watching sports isn't even close. I like to jump around while watching sports. Things like 30 second skip between plays in a football game or replay reviews or all breaks are made for Tivo's trick play features. I hate watching games on Watch ESPN where I have to use the trick play features (even the improved ones on the AppleTV) to move around games and commercials. Plus the picture just looks off for sports streaming. Not nearly as good as broadcast or cable signal regardless of resolution.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

cybergrimes said:


> Edit: also how popular is the Mini in OTA homes? TiVo probably has some good data here looking at Roamio OTA owner accounts.
> Personally we only watch OTA in living room, a secondary TV is available but with an old Roku stick.


Yeah, I'd agree. If I do end up cutting the cord, which is likely, I probably won't even bother setting my Minis up at my next place, as I'll just end up watching less non-streaming content. The Minis are great for putting the news on a smaller TV, etc, but it seems less essential with OTA.



NashGuy said:


> For a lot of non-cable subscribers, OTA is just one part of their TV mix and, given the rise of streaming, not even the most important part.


Yeah, that's definitely the case. Even now, with cable, OTA, Netflix, Amazon, and HBO Go, I find that cable/OTA is probably about half of my viewing.



wizwor said:


> New sub-channels and super channels provide a broad selection of programming via antenna.


Ugh, the stupid subchannels. I wish those things would just die so that each channel could have the full 19.3mbps for their HD feed.



atmuscarella said:


> And of course if someone is (or has) "cutting the cord" because they basically don't watch TV and just have an antenna connect to a TV in case they might want to watch something (and yes I also have a few friends like this) then spending money on anything else certainly doesn't make any sense.


That's the scenario that more OTA-only households are in than not, from what I've seen. A lot of them have OTA so that they could watch the news or a major football game if they wanted to, but they rarely actually do so. When I cut the cord, I plan on actually using my TiVo with OTA for a part of my viewing, as I already watch some stuff on PBS and a couple of network shows that I record via cable.



wizwor said:


> If OTA-_only_ subscribers constitute 17% of the 118.4m households, then there are 20.1m OTA-only subscribers. Subtract the 7.4m TiVo subscribers and 12.7m OTA-only subscribers who do not own a TiVo.


Your math is totally hosed up. TiVo has 7.4m total subscribers worldwide, most of them are outside the US or on cable in the US, mostly through MSOs, and of the remaining <1M subs who own their own TiVos, most use cable. The OTA TiVo market is a few hundred thousand at best right now. So even with the other DVR solutions out there, that leaves somewhere around 15-19M OTA households without a DVR. It just depends on how many of them actually watch OTA content, and want a DVR.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

NYHeel said:


> If I have a show that I recorded and also have available on Hulu or Netflix, I much prefer to watch my recorded one over the streaming one. The skip mode button has removed the advantage commercial free streaming used to have over having to 30 second skip through commercials and I much prefer the trick play features and responsiveness on the Tivo vs. Netflix, Hulu or Amazon. I was just watching Catastrophe on Amazon last night and I frequently had to rewind a bit to make out what some of the characters were saying because of their accent. (Also, the sound quality didn't seem all that great.) It was really annoying to rewind, wait, press play, wait, and then hope you got to the right spot. I much prefer hitting 8 second rewind once or twice. It's near instant.
> 
> Watching sports isn't even close. I like to jump around while watching sports. Things like 30 second skip between plays in a football game or replay reviews or all breaks are made for Tivo's trick play features. I hate watching games on Watch ESPN where I have to use the trick play features (even the improved ones on the AppleTV) to move around games and commercials. Plus the picture just looks off for sports streaming. Not nearly as good as broadcast or cable signal regardless of resolution.


Trick play with a TiVo is better overall than with streaming, although I've found that the situation varies a lot between steaming services and devices. Amazon on my Roamio is the *worst* when it comes to jumping back to replay the last several seconds (something that I often do as well). It's faster in the Amazon app on my LG TV but still not good. But it's very fast on my parents' 2nd gen Fire TV stick. (Amazon offers a much better UX for their service on their own hardware.) Amazon content also gets a visual thumbnail during FF and rewind on the Fire TV while their app for other devices doesn't.

The 7-second or 10-second jump back feature in the Netflix and Hulu apps on my LG TV are really just as snappy as the instant replay feature for OTA recordings on my Roamio, though. I prefer the way Netflix does it, with a single button press (left), while Hulu requires two presses (left + play). Now, if you like to do slow-mo or freeze frame, that sort of trick play stuff is definitely still better on a DVR, but I very seldom do that stuff.

And while I love TiVo's SkipMode, watching shows in ad-free Hulu is even better since there's no need to press anything to skip the commercials -- they're already taken out. Plus, ABC and NBC HD content looks better in Hulu than from their Nashville OTA affiliates. (Fox looks about the same.)


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Your math is totally hosed up. TiVo has 7.4m total subscribers worldwide, most of them are outside the US or on cable in the US, mostly through MSOs, and of the remaining <1M subs who own their own TiVos, most use cable. The OTA TiVo market is a few hundred thousand at best right now. So even with the other DVR solutions out there, that leaves somewhere around 15-19M OTA households without a DVR. It just depends on how many of them actually watch OTA content, and want a DVR.


I know that. I was being conservative. There simply is not sufficient data to be precise -- starting with the OTA-only households. Any reasonable adjustment to the data increased the number of OTA-only households with no DVR. That was my point.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

There clearly are several types of house holds that don't sub to a traditional Pay TV provider. I would say there are at least the following:

People who don't watch TV.

People who truly can not afford any type of Pay TV and have to use OTA.
People who don't use a TV to watch TV and access "TV" shows on Phones, Tablets, & Computers via Streaming services.

People who can afford traditional Pay TV but choose to not subscribe to it. 
The group of people in #4 are the ones we are talking about, unfortunately what portion of the 17 million households that use OTA they are is an unknown. I am still betting that a big portion of people who have the economic means to provide control of their viewing experience are doing so in some way. But I certainly don't have any data to prove it one way or the other.

What is clear is that pretty much everyone here who doesn't sub to a traditional Pay TV service is in the forth group and we all care about controlling our TV viewing experience enough to do something about it.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

The Nielsen study was of TV homes in the US, so your first group is not in their numbers. 2 is theoretical and does not actually exist. Let's face it, in the US, welfare families have cable if they want it. The third group is not OTA-_only_. As Bigg said, there are 15-19m OTA households without a DVR.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Let's face it, in the US, welfare families have cable if they want it.


Wow. Such a statement_._


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Nearly two-thirds of poor households have cable or satellite TV


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Nearly two-thirds of poor households have cable or satellite TV


Oh, yes, CNSNews.com and The Heritage Foundation, both of whom I am sure are good, unbiased sources.  (Nor does the story state that welfare families have cable if they want it, or that other lower-income families, not on welfare, have and get/can afford to get cable, as is conclusorily assumed above, without support.)


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

You guys hate data. Google is your friend. Here is an article from a Counterfeit News Network Senior Editor that says the same thing...

Poverty in America: If Poor People Own 'Luxury' Items, Are They Really Poor?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> You guys hate data. Google is your friend. Here is an article from a Counterfeit News Network Senior Editor that says the same thing...
> 
> Poverty in America: If Poor People Own 'Luxury' Items, Are They Really Poor?


It is nearly impossible to know if these Internet based "news" outlets are accurately reporting facts or making sh** up, or something in the middle. At best they are all biased and cherry picking data that supports the narrative that the money behind them wants pushed.

I used to work with Developers that built and managed low income housing in Rural areas. It was very common for the cable companies to sell these Developers cable at wholesale and then they resold cable to their tenants at a significantly lower rate than you or I could get it for. The cable companies liked it because they had one reliable account, the Developers liked it as it gave them a marketing edge, and the tenants liked it because cable cost less.

Regarding what else "poor" people own that is a function of what type of poor person they are. During the 2008ish recession lots of people became poor that were well off prior to become poor - those types of poor people tend to have more and better stuff than those who have always been poor. Another large group of people who tend to become poor are seniors who have lost a spouse (and therefor the spouse income) or who have had health problems that depleted their savings - they also tend to have had nicer stuff and in many cases owned or still own a home.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

wizwor said:


> You guys hate data. Google is your friend. Here is an article from a Senior Editor that says the same thing...


The article may seem to echo the theme of the Heritage piece because the article is entirely based on the Heritage piece, as the author repeatedly cites.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> I know that. I was being conservative. There simply is not sufficient data to be precise -- starting with the OTA-only households. Any reasonable adjustment to the data increased the number of OTA-only households with no DVR. That was my point.


Then assume there are 500k OTA TiVo users. There are only around 950k total TiVo users in the US who own their own TiVo to pull from, not 7M+. Heck, even if you assume that every TiVo capable of doing OTA is running on OTA, you're still well short of 1M after pulling out the Premiere4, Roamio Plus/Pro, and Bolt+ units that are cable only.



atmuscarella said:


> The group of people in #4 are the ones we are talking about, unfortunately what portion of the 17 million households that use OTA they are is an unknown. I am still betting that a big portion of people who have the economic means to provide control of their viewing experience are doing so in some way. But I certainly don't have any data to prove it one way or the other.


But group #4 is growing every day as people cut the cord. I suspect over time, providers like Comcast will start to back off from these really aggressive bundles with TV, as they aren't making money on them over what they could off of internet-only. There are anywhere from 1-3M would-be cord cutters hiding in Comcast's broadband monopoly ready to come out when Comcast wants to let them out, or competitive broadband providers come in, and I believe that there are some more hiding under bulk deals, which will take decades to unwind, but some associations/condos/landlords will, over time, decide that they aren't worth it anymore.

People continue to cut the cord as they are moving, and more and more people decide it's not worth it each time the content providers push the industry farther down the death spiral. These trends are going to continue as they have been for several years.

The trend is clear, even though it has a very, very long tail on it. DISH is going to go down first, DirecTV will shrink, but has a stable hotel and commercial market, along with bundling with AT&T. Cable will lose a lot of pay-TV subs, but they charge so much for broadband that their profit margins won't be hugely impacted, although losing scale for content negotiations could hurt.



wizwor said:


> Let's face it, in the US, welfare families have cable if they want it. The third group is not OTA-_only_. As Bigg said, there are 15-19m OTA households without a DVR.


Yes, I did say there are 15-19M households without a DVR. But "welfare families have cable if they want it". No. Just no. There are some low-income families with pay-TV, particularly in rural areas, or through bulk deals, but many others have very limited pay-TV services, or none at all. Anecdotally, I can say that DirecTV has good penetration in lower-income areas around here, but that's probably due to sports alliances, and there are a lot of households in those areas without DirecTV, probably many of those without pay-TV.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

krkaufman said:


> The article may seem to echo the theme of the Heritage piece because the article is entirely based on the Heritage piece, as the author repeatedly cites.


it also cites census data...which is the source of the CNS article.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Also, lest we be showing an urban bias, in some areas, cable is the only way to get television. My parents live in a well-developed, rural area, with a core town of 2,000 people, which gets a fair amount of tourism commerce and is only 1-1/2 hours from a small city, but OTA television is not possible and they had to buy cable just to get the basic OTA channels, never having purchased cable in their lives.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wizwor said:


> it also cites census data...which is the source of the CNS article.


I wouldn't debate that, but as students and politicians have know for ages, one always can find statistics saying anything, and can interpret others to fit one's needs. Hence the current theory of "alternative facts."  But methinks that we're a bit off-topic. The fact is, there still is some sort of an OTA crowd, by choice or necessity.


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

schatham said:


> Philips PVR will probably be better built and have more features users want. No real details have been released yet. Phillips wants to make money so they have an interest in getting it right. Remember Philips is building this to sell, licensing the Tivo guide. Tivo builds PVR's to sell Tivo service, so will build the cheapest thing they can contract out.
> 
> The only thing interesting in this release is "802.11ac Wi-Fi networking to distribute playback of recordings". Maybe it will be able to play shows on your network devices, Ipad etc.


I thought all Philips/Magnavox products sold in the U.S are made by Funai OUR BRANDS | Funai Corporation Whether that is good or bad, I don't really know. Whether that deal still exists, I don't know as well. Tried to google it and got conflicting stories.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Been trying to dig up info on this and it hasn't been easy.

TiVo Heads Back To The Future (with new hardware partners)

TiVo's PR firm gave me a rather useless, canned response and sounds like the F&P CES press person is only engaged for certain events or products, is a dead end as the moment has passed. But I did see some pictures from the booth (that I was told not to post). The "concept" model enclosure is utilitarian and looks to be reusing an existing Philips chassis. The UI pictured in marketing materials was not any old or new TiVo interface I've seen. Looked more Roku-esque with a vertical text menu on the left with some large thumbnails on the right. Philips intent at the show seemed to be gauging retailer interest - that would probably drive how many models and what many features make the cut. And they really need those retail partnerships to drive awareness and sales. Guess we'll see what it/they look like when/if they actually make it to market. I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## V7Goose (May 28, 2005)

I do not know what the future of TiVo is, but I do believe that Bad Rovi is killing it quickly. That is a damned shame. I am OTA only, and I will not watch TV at all without a DVR. I want to watch what I want, when I want, where I want, and I want the ability to ignore commercials. I do not see how people can be happy without a DVR now, but ignorance is bliss. I was once like them - back in 2000 when TiVo was fairly new, I read lots of wonderful articles about it that claimed it was an unbelievable god-send to humanity. I scoffed and thought all those idiots were brain dead beyond belief. I could see absolutely NO reason that I would ever consider buying such a box (and I made a lot of money back then). But then my wife bought me a Series 2 for Christmas, and my world was about to change. I HATED the concept, and I did not even want to open the box. But out of politeness, I decided I had to at least show her I would give it a try. Ohhhh, how wrong I had been! I quickly learned I did not want to live without it.

Although I currently use two old two-tuner series 3 boxes along with a new four-tuner box, I only do that because they are fully paid lifetime subs. The main purpose of the old boxes is to simply provide TiVo capabilities to secondary TVs in the house that do not get much use. If I did not still have the old boxes, I would have to have something else to stream programming from the main f0ur-tuner box in the entertainment center. I would NEVER consider buying a new two-tuner box unless it was almost free (with no monthly cost either). And that just ain't gonna happen. I live in a remote rural mountain area with very limited OTA channels, but I still regularly use 3 or 4 concurrent tuners for recording. Having these all in one box is tremendously more convenient than having to decide which box to use for each new recording or season pass.

Personally, I suspect that an awful lot of folks who claim that they have no OTA options simply do not know the facts. When I first moved here, I thought the same thing, and consequently I suffered with terrible Dish service for four years. And then I did some research on the FCC license database and found that I really DID have OTA options! Forget sites like TVFool and antenna sellers - they are idiots that focus only on main population areas. I have found they are totally WRONG in many areas of the rural west.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

V7Goose said:


> *Personally, I suspect that an awful lot of folks who claim that they have no OTA options simply do not know the facts. * When I first moved here, I thought the same thing, and consequently I suffered with terrible Dish service for four years. And then I did some research on the FCC license database and found that I really DID have OTA options! Forget sites like TVFool and antenna sellers - they are idiots that focus only on main population areas. I have found they are totally WRONG in many areas of the rural west.


Personally, I suspect that people making statements like this simply do not know the facts.

While I agree with your concerns over the negative impact of Rovi (flawed) data on the Tivo value proposition, I completely disagree with your disregard for people who have legitimate OTA barriers.

I don't know what areas of the "rural west" you're apparently familiar with, however here in the east and midwest, things are certainly challenging in many locations. Here in southwestern PA, we have these things called hills. And, the broadcasters are not consolidated in terms of where they are located. Myself, I have elevation well above me in short distances for about 270 degrees surrounding my home. ABC is at a mag azimuth of 79deg - 11 miles. Directly blocked by a large hill. There are some misc sub channels at 7.52deg, 35 miles. Directly blocked by a large hill. NBC is 15 miles at 352deg, blocked by a large hill. CBS is at close to the same azimuth, at 35 miles. Again - blocked. So is Fox - 35 miles. There are some misc other channels out there at distances of 50+ miles. ABC I can still usually get. However, without rotating the antenna, I cannot get anything else. And then when I do, I get a lot of pixelation due to signal loss.

I've tried everything reasonably possible to get OTA. By my calculation, the only way for me to be able to fix the issue - possibly - would be to erect an antenna tower at least 100' high. At that point I'm still not sure if the elevation would be sufficient - nor am I sure that I would be able to get most of the channels without rotating the antenna.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

wmhjr said:


> I've tried everything reasonably possible to get OTA. By my calculation, the only way for me to be able to fix the issue - possibly - would be to erect an antenna tower at least 100' high. At that point I'm still not sure if the elevation would be sufficient - nor am I sure that I would be able to get most of the channels without rotating the antenna.


I have tried too. I can understand someone not believing my report. And you can check my location: National Weather Service (just scroll down to the map and zoom out). Yeah, I have hills. I never see a sunset or sunrise. But I am blessed with a pretty good cable feed and internet service. So things could be worse.

As for Philips, I still keep a Funai/Maganavox 515H in my rack. It does work well to burn a DVD.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Joe, if you live where I think you do (near the Gap) you've got a big ridgeline to your north..... Your area isn't as hilly as where I'm at other than that ridgeline but I'm guessing you get most of your OTA from Harrisburg and probably wouldn't have much success either.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

wmhjr said:


> Joe, if you live where I think you do (near the Gap) you've got a big ridgeline to your north..... Your area isn't as hilly as where I'm at other than that ridgeline but I'm guessing you get most of your OTA from Harrisburg and probably wouldn't have much success either.


Just click on the link. I'm between Philly, Harrisburg and NYC. Way southwest of the Gap. I81 exit 124 is 6 miles away and all uphill.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

V7Goose said:


> Personally, I suspect that an awful lot of folks who claim that they have no OTA options simply do not know the facts.


I think that changing technology and misleading advertising contribute to this: how often do we see a commercial on television for a "miracle stick" or device that will allow the consumer to watch digital television without cable, "for only $19.99 plus shipping and handling"? In my childhood, we called that device a, wait for it, "antenna." Seemingly many people today have no idea that television programming still is available over the air, for free (ok, in exchange for watching or skipping through commercials) and in a beautiful digitalized form.


----------



## 241705 (Mar 9, 2010)

Agreed there is definitely misconception about OTA. I just had someone last week say to me: "You have an antenna? Then you don't get anything in HD, do you?"


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

JoeKustra said:


> Just click on the link. I'm between Philly, Harrisburg and NYC. Way southwest of the Gap. I81 exit 124 is 6 miles away and all uphill.


Gotcha. Very familiar with the area. It's amazing how some people who can get OTA seem to think that everybody else must be an idiot. Maybe one of them would volunteer to stop over here and be my full time antenna rotator so that every time a channel needed to change, they would be ready to go ahead and change azimuth. Of course, that still means I'd only have a couple channels that are remotely reliable, and only one tuner would be useful.....


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

This a junk TWO OTA DVR. This is TiVo's new model (born from Rovi past model) : exist just to license TiVo patents and "brand" and logo that is displayed along side the real brand of the DVR. When people see that TiVo logo on a junk DVR, it can make for more sales just because the TiVo logo is there and the phrase "powered by TiVo." This is the same for the Arris CATV DVR. The real brand logo, and the "bought" TiVo logo with the perceived (pre-Rovi) reputation that consumers know.


----------



## toricred (Mar 9, 2004)

V7Goose said:


> I do not know what the future of TiVo is, but I do believe that Bad Rovi is killing it quickly. That is a damned shame. I am OTA only, and I will not watch TV at all without a DVR. I want to watch what I want, when I want, where I want, and I want the ability to ignore commercials. I do not see how people can be happy without a DVR now, but ignorance is bliss. I was once like them - back in 2000 when TiVo was fairly new, I read lots of wonderful articles about it that claimed it was an unbelievable god-send to humanity. I scoffed and thought all those idiots were brain dead beyond belief. I could see absolutely NO reason that I would ever consider buying such a box (and I made a lot of money back then). But then my wife bought me a Series 2 for Christmas, and my world was about to change. I HATED the concept, and I did not even want to open the box. But out of politeness, I decided I had to at least show her I would give it a try. Ohhhh, how wrong I had been! I quickly learned I did not want to live without it.
> 
> Although I currently use two old two-tuner series 3 boxes along with a new four-tuner box, I only do that because they are fully paid lifetime subs. The main purpose of the old boxes is to simply provide TiVo capabilities to secondary TVs in the house that do not get much use. If I did not still have the old boxes, I would have to have something else to stream programming from the main f0ur-tuner box in the entertainment center. I would NEVER consider buying a new two-tuner box unless it was almost free (with no monthly cost either). And that just ain't gonna happen. I live in a remote rural mountain area with very limited OTA channels, but I still regularly use 3 or 4 concurrent tuners for recording. Having these all in one box is tremendously more convenient than having to decide which box to use for each new recording or season pass.
> 
> Personally, I suspect that an awful lot of folks who claim that they have no OTA options simply do not know the facts. When I first moved here, I thought the same thing, and consequently I suffered with terrible Dish service for four years. And then I did some research on the FCC license database and found that I really DID have OTA options! Forget sites like TVFool and antenna sellers - they are idiots that focus only on main population areas. I have found they are totally WRONG in many areas of the rural west.


I see you're from New Mexico. So am I and I found TVFool to have pretty good advice. I've been able to get channels since the Digital switch with almost no antenna and I live 60 miles from the towers on Sandia Peak.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Mikeguy said:


> I think that changing technology and misleading advertising contribute to this: how often do we see a commercial on television for a "miracle stick" or device that will allow the consumer to watch digital television without cable, "for only $19.99 plus shipping and handling"? In my childhood, we called that device a, wait for it, "antenna." Seemingly many people today have no idea that television programming still is available over the air, for free (ok, in exchange for watching or skipping through commercials) and in a beautiful digitalized form.


I think they are unaware of all the sub-channels and the OLD (but still good) programming available there. If they knew about it and tried it, they would probably cord cut right away, especially the older folks who LOVE those old shows, feeling they have enough fall-back content if they just have to have a break from Netflix and Amazon.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JoeKustra said:


> ...... The product was listed as incorporating a full-functioning TiVo programming guide ........
> "full-functioning TiVo programming guide"? Where do I get one of those?


This.

Any product that relies on Rovi guide data is already at a big disadvantage. This is especially true for an OTA product since Rovi data has been particularly bad for rural OTA situations because they do a terrible job of anticipating which stations can be received at a particular location, at least judging by many horror stories posted on TCF.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Series3Sub said:


> I think they are unaware of all the sub-channels and the OLD (but still good) programming available there. If they knew about it and tried it, they would probably cord cut right away, especially the older folks who LOVE those old shows, feeling they have enough fall-back content if they just have to have a break from Netflix and Amazon.


Ugh, I wish subchannels would all go away so we could have 19.3mbps main channels.



dlfl said:


> Any product that relies on Rovi guide data is already at a big disadvantage. This is especially true for an OTA product since Rovi data has been particularly bad for rural OTA situations because they do a terrible job of anticipating which stations can be received at a particular location, at least judging by many horror stories posted on TCF.


Interesting. My experience has been that my Roamio OTA lists stations that are ridiculously far away, and I wouldn't have a prayer of picking up, even with something like a DB8e and preamp, but it's channel scanning leaves something to be desired.


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Ugh, I wish subchannels would all go away so we could have 19.3mbps main channels.
> 
> Interesting. My experience has been that my Roamio OTA lists stations that are ridiculously far away, and I wouldn't have a prayer of picking up, even with something like a DB8e and preamp, but it's channel scanning leaves something to be desired.


I get your point on sub channels but we have few stations here so it's nice to have the variety, we especially like PBS sub channels and probably watch Create more than the main PBS feed. After the Rovi switch I ended up with a lot of far away stations in my list but actually lost a cluster of lower power stations about 60 miles away. I've tried changing zip codes to towns closer to that cluster but no luck.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

cybergrimes said:


> I get your point on sub channels but we have few stations here so it's nice to have the variety, we especially like PBS sub channels and probably watch Create more than the main PBS feed. After the Rovi switch I ended up with a lot of far away stations in my list but actually lost a cluster of lower power stations about 60 miles away. I've tried changing zip codes to towns closer to that cluster but no luck.


PBS has a decent -2 feed here, but they rob too much bitrate from the main feed, so I'd rather just not have the -2 and -3. Interesting, is the propagation model wrong, or are those stations just not listed at all?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

My preference would be a single SD subchannel per station. That would still leave a healthy amount of bandwidth for high-quality HD while also providing a decent selection across the dial of subchannels devoted to classic TV and movies, plus local weather and news.


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

Bigg said:


> PBS has a decent -2 feed here, but they rob too much bitrate from the main feed, so I'd rather just not have the -2 and -3. Interesting, is the propagation model wrong, or are those stations just not listed at all?


Oh I totally agree they starve the signals, I was watching Poldark over the summer/fall and felt the 720p picture looked overly compressed, had a bad recording for some reason and had to watch an episode on the PBS app using Chromecast to my TV and found the picture was slightly better looking which is weird because _I think it was a 480p stream.
_
These stations are not listed at all anymore but they really are low power at only 80 kW ERP. I could get the ABC affiliate from that location in the evening except now it's not an option. Just checked my TV Fool report and the station is 2Edge at 64.6 miles away, the closer zip code I tried is 2Edge at 44.3 miles away. It's a location we'll be moving to later this year so I'll need to contact TiVo eventually I guess...

Honestly I wouldn't normally say much about losing a low powered 2Edge station except they added stations 140 miles away!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> My preference would be a single SD subchannel per station. That would still leave a healthy amount of bandwidth for high-quality HD while also providing a decent selection across the dial of subchannels devoted to classic TV and movies, plus local weather and news.


Yeah, if you carve off ~2mbps for an SD channel, you still have 17mbps left for the main feed, which would look spectacular.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

cybergrimes said:


> Oh I totally agree they starve the signals, I was watching Poldark over the summer/fall and felt the 720p picture looked overly compressed, had a bad recording for some reason and had to watch an episode on the PBS app using Chromecast to my TV and found the picture was slightly better looking which is weird because _I think it was a 480p stream._


_
_
It depends on the station. WEDH-DT here in Connecticut is around 9mbps on their main feed, as something is messed up with their encoding. I contacted them about it, and they said they know about it, but it's not high on their priority list. WGBH-DT looks a lot better at ~13mbps, but I don't have it in HD anymore, as I switched cable companies, and my current one doesn't carry it in HD like Comcast did.



> These stations are not listed at all anymore but they really are low power at only 80 kW ERP. I could get the ABC affiliate from that location in the evening except now it's not an option. Just checked my TV Fool report and the station is 2Edge at 64.6 miles away, the closer zip code I tried is 2Edge at 44.3 miles away. It's a location we'll be moving to later this year so I'll need to contact TiVo eventually I guess...
> 
> Honestly I wouldn't normally say much about losing a low powered 2Edge station except they added stations 140 miles away!


Is the station in their guide data at all? Will it show up if you use the ZIP code where it is being transmitted from? If all your stations are in one direction, that would be a solution, if they're opposite directions, there may not be a ZIP where you'd get listings for everything you receive....


----------

