# Amazon has announced a DVR



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

Today, Amazon announced their Firetv recast 500GB DVR

Amazon Fire TV Recast lets you send live TV recordings to your device


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Looks great on paper, like a subscription free Tivo with OTT streaming apps like we've been asking for. Perfect.
https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Recast-Over-air-hours/dp/B01J6A6H74

Lots more details like recording options in the FAQ:
Amazon.com Help: Fire TV Recast FAQs

A few observations:
- Good recording options (start/stop padding, protect from deletion, keep at most, record all/new/repeats, HD preferred)
- Does not record buffer if starting a recording in the middle of a program
- No storage expansion
- No recording transfers or offline viewing
- Live TV trick play
- No undelete
- Overwrites oldest unprotected recordings when storage is full


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Basically, this is like a Tablo but with no ongoing subscription fee for guide data/DVR service. (It doesn't even require an Amazon Prime subscription for free ongoing service, which I figured it would!) Other differences are that the Fire TV Recast has 500GB or 1TB of built-in storage while Tablos either have no storage or relatively little (requiring an external USB hard drive), and that Tablo can be used in conjunction with lots of different viewing TV-connected devices (Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, etc.) while the Recast will only work with Fire TV. Both support viewing on iOS and Android mobile devices.


----------



## alarson83 (Oct 27, 2009)

A lot will depend on how the interface is, but this looks like some serious competition for the tivo OTA


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

I forget, does Fire offer an OTT streaming for cable channels such as NatGeo/Discovery/ESPN/ComcastSportsNet ? I suppose I'll just google it but maybe discuss here...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

OTA only 

I need something to record from my cable. Will say with TiVo .


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

For folks who are OK with the Fire TV UI and use it as their preferred streamer, this looks like a very slick and cost-effective OTA TV solution. No need to switch inputs over to a separate TiVo box. No need to set up a more complicated and expensive DIY solution involving HDHomeRun tuners with either Plex or Channels apps.

Having live and recorded OTA TV integrated into the native Amazon Fire TV UI, right alongside content from Prime Video and Amazon Channels (HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax, CBS All Access) is pretty nice. Fire TV even provides the live channels from HBO, Showtime, etc. if you get them via Amazon Channels; I'm pretty sure they would show up in the same grid guide as your local OTA channels. This is basically what I had envisioned the TiVo Roamio OTA developing into over time but it never happened...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

ah30k said:


> I forget, does Fire offer an OTT streaming for cable channels such as NatGeo/Discovery/ESPN/ComcastSportsNet ? I suppose I'll just google it but maybe discuss here...





jsmeeker said:


> OTA only
> 
> I need something to record from my cable. Will say with TiVo .


There are apps for "streaming cable" services, including DirecTV Now, PS Vue, and Hulu with Live TV, available for Fire TV. But content from those services, as well as their program guides/grids, would be segregated away in their own apps, not really integrated into the native Amazon UI alongside the OTA content from the new Recast product.

Amazon does not offer their own package of streaming cable channels, although I could easily imagine them doing so through their Amazon Channels initiative.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

NashGuy said:


> There are apps for "streaming cable" services, including DirecTV Now, PS Vue, and Hulu with Live TV, available for Fire TV. But content from those services, as well as their program guides/grids, would be segregated away in their own apps, not really integrated into the native Amazon UI alongside the OTA content from the new Recast product.
> 
> Amazon does not offer their own package of streaming cable channels, although I could easily imagine them doing so through their Amazon Channels initiative.


Those services seem to always have gaps. I've found that traditional cable packages get me the channels I need at the best price and with the right kind of convenience.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

This would pair nicely with a Fire TV powered smart TV. You'd get it all right on the TV's native apps (OTA, DVR, OTT, etc.).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Amazon is such a huge company, and there's already such a big install base of Fire TV sticks and boxes in use, that it's hard to see how this product won't have implications for both Tablo (a direct competitor) as well as TiVo.

I wonder what it means for TiVo? Right now, they're no longer selling the Roamio OTA, which is the only OTA-only DVR they've ever produced. Given that TiVo-branded hardware will be produced by an external partner company going forward, perhaps we'll see a new batch of the Roamio OTA manufactured by the partner hit the market soon. But I'd be surprised if that happens. It increasingly feels like a dated design. If there is to continue being an OTA-only TiVo, I think it will be very much like the Tablo and the new Fire TV Recast -- a central box that connects to the home network and allows for viewing and DVR management through a TiVo app on a range of devices like Apple TV, Fire TV, etc. I just don't see an outside company taking a look at the old-school Roamio OTA design and deciding to carry on with it as a solution aimed at cord-cutters.

As for Tablo, they better focus hard on making their product work as well as possible with Roku and Apple TV because I don't see how they can compete very well among consumers who are already on board with Fire TV and Alexa. A Tablo 4-tuner DVR can be bought for $200. Combine that with a $50 1 TB USB hard drive and a $150 lifetime guide subscription and you're at $400. Meanwhile, Amazon is selling their 4-tuner 1TB version of the Recast, with free lifetime guide data, for $280. And it integrates better with Fire TV, Amazon Channels and Alexa than Tablo.


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

I guess this device is going to transcode everything? Or can it output native MPEG-2/AC3?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I wonder if you can stream out of home to a FireTV? If so I might pick one up to play around with.

I see the four tuner version is $280
https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Recast-...1537474097&sr=1-1&keywords=firetv+recast&th=1


----------



## jfalkingham (Jul 23, 2002)

I pre-ordered to check it out. This does not connect to a TV. You can run it from attic or wherever you have best signal strength. This device will then stream wirelessly or via wired network to your fire TV, echo show, kindle, android or iOS devices. 

TiVo is through; long live TiVo?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

Luke M said:


> I guess this device is going to transcode everything? Or can it output native MPEG-2/AC3?


Good question... my primary complaint about Tablo is the transcoding, especially on SD broadcast material, which, frankly, is what's on most of the sub-channels in use. Tablo's transcode creates lots of sharpness artifacts (jagged edges on angular or curved lines) which once seen, aren't easily ignored. I've played with both the 4-tuner and a more recent 2-tuner model, but continue to return to using TiVo for that reason.










And while it's improved, somewhat, there's still a buffer lag when trying to launch live TV- the Tablo is not a device made for active channel surfing.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

My guess is that this box does transcode to H.264 progressive scan video in at least in some instances -- there's no way that it could act as a video server to most mobile phones otherwise, right? However, it doesn't seem to be automatically transcoding video BEFORE recording it. Note that the model with the 500 GB hard drive says it stores 75 hours of TV. That's the same amount that the old TiVo Roamio OTA with a 500 GB hard drive claimed to store. And the TiVo doesn't do any transcoding.

My guess is that this works like a Plex Media Server in conjunction with an HDHomeRun Connect tuner. OTA TV is recorded in its original MPEG-2 format, in the original 1080i, 720p or 480i. But how live and recorded TV is passed along from the Recast to the client device probably depends on the capabilities of the client device. Assuming a Fire TV stick or box can decode and de-interlace 1080i MPEG-2 video, I would bet that the Recast streams video to it in its original format. Because if that weren't the case, and the Recast only streams H.264 progressive scan video to all client devices, well then why wouldn't the transcoding be done on-the-fly (e.g. in a buffered cache) before getting stored to the hard drive? That would have a major upside because it would increase the number of hours of TV that could be stored on the hard drive.

However, if the video is stored in the original format and sent in that format to at least some Fire TV devices, well, the upside there should be much quicker channel changes plus better picture quality.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I think it is telling that the amazon listing shows no interface at all.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> I think it is telling that the amazon listing shows no interface at all.


You can see the UI in action (with a whole lot of Alexa voice commands being used) if you watch the video that's embedded on the product page. Looks like recordings are presented as graphic tiles in a horizontal row rather than a vertical text list. No surprise there. The live channel guide looks like the same one that's already been in use on Amazon-powered smart TVs for live OTA TV, plus streaming channels from HBO, etc. via Amazon Channels.

Live TV has a new home on Fire TV - Amazon Fire TV


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

Reading the details on amazon.com, the 2 tuner and 4 tuner versions both have two "Transcoders (for playback)". So it's recording MPEG-2 and transcoding at playback time.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> My guess is that this box does transcode to H.264 progressive scan video in at least in some instances -- there's no way that it could act as a video server to most mobile phones otherwise, right? However, it doesn't seem to be automatically transcoding video BEFORE recording it. Note that the model with the 500 GB hard drive says it stores 75 hours of TV. That's the same amount that the old TiVo Roamio OTA with a 500 GB hard drive claimed to store. And the TiVo doesn't do any transcoding.
> 
> My guess is that this works like a Plex Media Server in conjunction with an HDHomeRun Connect tuner. OTA TV is recorded in its original MPEG-2 format, in the original 1080i, 720p or 480i. But how live and recorded TV is passed along from the Recast to the client device probably depends on the capabilities of the client device. Assuming a Fire TV stick or box can decode and de-interlace 1080i MPEG-2 video, I would bet that the Recast streams video to it in its original format. Because if that weren't the case, and the Recast only streams H.264 progressive scan video to all client devices, well then why wouldn't the transcoding be done on-the-fly (e.g. in a buffered cache) before getting stored to the hard drive? That would have a major upside because it would increase the number of hours of TV that could be stored on the hard drive.
> 
> However, if the video is stored in the original format and sent in that format to at least some Fire TV devices, well, the upside there should be much quicker channel changes plus better picture quality.


I expect it to work just like the TiVos do. It always records to the hard drive. There is no such thing as live TV. And streaming devices typically cannot play back MPEG2. So it has to be converted to H.264 for the FireTVs.

So it would record to the hard drive first in MPEG2, then read it off the hard drive, then transcode to H.264, then stream it to a FireTV. The same as a TiVo Bolt does when streaming to non TiVo devices. And the FireTV Recast is limited to two streams out, just like a Bolt is. So I wonder if it's using the same SoC as the TiVo Bolt is?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> I expect it to work just like the TiVos do. It always records to the hard drive. There is no such thing as live TV. And streaming devices typically cannot play back MPEG2. So it has to be converted to H.264 for the FireTVs.
> 
> So it would record to the hard drive first in MPEG2, then read it off the hard drive, then transcode to H.264, then stream it to a FireTV. The same as a TiVo Bolt does when streaming to non TiVo devices. And the FireTV Recast is limited to two streams out, just like a Bolt is. So I wonder if it's using the same SoC as the TiVo Bolt is?


If you research specs, it looks like some models of Fire TVs can in fact support hardware decoding of MPEG-2. As I asked in the post that you quoted, if the Recast was designed to stream in H.264 to all clients, like a Tablo does, then why wouldn't it transcode to H.264 BEFORE storing to the hard drive, like a Tablo does? That would conserve hard drive space and allow Amazon to boast a much higher number of storage hours for their device.

https://www.tablotv.com/blog/tablo-dvr-live-tv-recording-quality-settings/

When it comes to trick play with live TV, I wonder if that's based off of what the Recast has buffered on its own hard drive/RAM or if that's being done in a local cache in the Fire TV's own RAM. mdavej posted above that the Recast does NOT include the live TV buffer as part of the recording if you begin recording a show after you've tuned into it live. Perhaps that's because the live TV buffer is stored on the local device, not the Recast? If so, that should make trick play more responsive and smoother.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> I expect it to work just like the TiVos do. It always records to the hard drive. There is no such thing as live TV. And streaming devices typically cannot play back MPEG2. So it has to be converted to H.264 for the FireTVs.


Fire TVs can handle MPEG2. (PLEX never transcodes my MPEG2 DVD MKVs- it plays em direct) So the FireTV clients wouldn't need transcoded MPEG-2 streams.

erp,what Nash said.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

My old HD Homerun Duals direct play the mpeg 2 OTA via the HD Homerun app and via Plex when playing to my 2nd Gen Fire TV Stick and the 4k Fire TV Pendant.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Why compromise OTA picture quality by streaming it ? This a solution looking for a problem. Live TV streaming services can already do most of this without messing with extra hardware. I had an incident where we had a failure of an OTA recording off on the local Fox station, went to catch it off of VOD on Sling TV(You could also use Hulu). Other than lack of 5.1 surround, it was a lot closer to OTA quality than you would think. With all of the recycled, SD sub channels there are maybe 4 to 5 channels in HD worth recording, and I see one channel with 720 p main channel and eight sub channels of SD . OTA is starting to turn into an expensive hobby. When the current Tivo dies I'm done with OTA, just don't need it anymore.
I can understand people who might have some use for OTA, but the "picture quality is way better on OTA ship has sailed", and sunk.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

jfalkingham said:


> I pre-ordered to check it out. This does not connect to a TV. You can run it from attic or wherever you have best signal strength. This device will then stream wirelessly or via wired network to your fire TV, echo show, kindle, android or iOS devices.
> 
> TiVo is through; long live TiVo?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Cloud DVR's will kill all of these things, give it 5 years.


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

FWIW, Tablo's 64 GB built in DVR is advertised at storage of 40 hours of HD recording- it's transcoded as it records, to a user selectable resolution+frame rate, but typically 720p.

Original format recording / send to streaming devices in that format would be wonderful- as others noted, it appears that the firetv devices can handle mpeg2.

As for the future of OTA, I would suspect that as part of, or in lieu of, the transition to ATSC 3.0, OTT streaming of local broadcast will be a normal thing. I can't see myself retooling Tivos or replacing TVs in that future reality, especially if local broadcast streaming takes hold.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

One problem with this from my perspective is that I absolutely refuse to have Alexa listening in on my home. Anyone know if it can be absolutely, positively disabled on a FireTV?


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

_*Can I start watching a live program from the beginning if I tune to it part-way through?*_

_No - you can only watch the program from the point at which you tuned into the channel on which it is airing.
_
I salute four tuners (option). Based on the above I'm guessing you can't tune to/watch a partially recorded show... commercial delayed per se. That and the possible downgrading of the image are my only red flags at this point in time...


----------



## giomania (Aug 25, 2017)

tenthplanet said:


> Cloud DVR's will kill all of these things, give it 5 years.


Not with Comcast's data caps!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

tenthplanet said:


> Cloud DVR's will kill all of these things, give it 5 years.


Have you tried any of these? I've tried most of them (Hulu Live, Youtube TV, AT&T etc.) and they all have horrible UIs. And they have functionality limitations too (no/poor commercial skip, variable picture quality, can't start viewing until program is finished etc.). Some of these limitations may be contractual and therefore can't be fixed. I agree it's promising technology but they have some way to go, especially when you consider how long it took Tivo to get to where it is. It will be very interesting to watch the Fire Recast reviews.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

nrc said:


> One problem with this from my perspective is that I absolutely refuse to have Alexa listening in on my home. Anyone know if it can be absolutely, positively disabled on a FireTV?


Most Fire TV models don't have a mic


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

... and mic on Fire TV doesn't listen until you press the button, same as Vox.

I think ineptitude and greed will keep Cloud DVRs in check for a while. In the mean time, I'll still with far superior local storage.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Can't believe no one has asked about the big Gorilla in the room: What is their program guide source? (Hopefully not Rovi/TiVo).

The Verge article listed in the first post says it streams at 1440x720. No 1080p ??

I can't find verification anywhere that it streams over hardwired ethernet, if you have that connected. (?)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dlfl said:


> Can't believe no one has asked about the big Gorilla in the room: What is their program guide source? (Hopefully not Rovi/TiVo).
> 
> The Verge article listed in the first post says it streams at 1440x720. No 1080p ??
> 
> I can't find verification anywhere that it streams over hardwired ethernet, if you have that connected. (?)


Yes, I was just reading that article over at The Verge. So apparently it streams all OTA HD to client devices in 720p at 60fps, at least if that article is correct. So maybe it IS transcoding everything? Or only transcoding (and deinterlacing) 1080i and 480i to H.264 720p while leaving 720p HD in the original MPEG-2 (although that seems unlikely)? If everything is getting transcoded before it gets sent out to any and all clients, then I still don't understand why it wouldn't just transcode all incoming signals one time (like Tablo does), as it records to the hard drive, rather than storing content in the original format (thereby taking up more disk space) and having to transcode every time it's viewed thereafter.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

ah30k said:


> I forget, does Fire offer an OTT streaming for cable channels such as NatGeo/Discovery/ESPN/ComcastSportsNet ? I suppose I'll just google it but maybe discuss here...


Here's an interesting feature that the Verge mentions:

_If you are a PlayStation Vue subscriber, its channels will be integrated into the channel list (and, Amazon says, de-duplicated)._

Based on the context of the article, when it says "channel list," I think it means the grid-based program guide for live OTA channels. No idea if PS Vue's DVR features are accessible from within that channel guide or even if Vue's streaming channels are displayed within the same native Fire TV UI as OTA channels or if when you click on a Vue channel in the guide, it merely triggers the Vue app to open and display that live channel. Interesting feature though.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Scooby Doo said:


> Have you tried any of these? I've tried most of them (Hulu Live, Youtube TV, AT&T etc.) and they all have horrible UIs. And they have functionality limitations too (no/poor commercial skip, variable picture quality, can't start viewing until program is finished etc.). Some of these limitations may be contractual and therefore can't be fixed. I agree it's promising technology but they have some way to go, especially when you consider how long it took Tivo to get to where it is. It will be very interesting to watch the Fire Recast reviews.


In addition to the OTA tivo, I have Sling and DTV NOw, (I got in the ground floor of both). Sling wipes the floor with most cloud dvr's, other then a few channels you are not allowed to record and Fx's you can't fast forward (you can pause and rewind FX). You don't have to wait the program to finish, programs are in your cloud till you run out space (100 hr in the beta, currently 50 hours for new subscribers. Using a Roku click right to jump 30 sec forward, click left to go back 10 seconds, if it's recorded you can jump through all commercials if you want just keep clicking. Other than lack of surround sound it's a lot like a Tivo, the guide can even be switched between channel tiles or grid. And it never has swapped a VOD copy of a program in place of a recorded one. 
Direct TV Now's DVR needs some improvement (still in beta). YouTube UI looks like it was designed by the designers of Chrome (that's not a compliment, Chrome is the browser for people who hate browsers). Hulu's UI has promise, just don't try to record a lot of stuff on the fly. 
All this being said a lot can change in 5 years, most of Tivo's OTA only competitors won't survive that long, it's niche market, of a niche market. Remember Simple TV ?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Unless it has Skipmode and QuickMode, I'm not interested.


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

Reading the Verge article, it sounds like it is transcoding everything to 720p, same as Tablo. If the transcoding, scaling, and de-interlacing is good, then no problem. As I have said, Tablo’s transcode of SD based OTA source material really needs some help. Maybe the developers at Amazon have a different secret sauce.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

nrc said:


> One problem with this from my perspective is that I absolutely refuse to have Alexa listening in on my home. Anyone know if it can be absolutely, positively disabled on a FireTV?


Mine is unplugged. Was very inexpensive, but the picture quality seemed identical to Tivo's. More or less, because of Alexa I am not using it.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

tapokata said:


> ATSC 3.0


I thought equipment with ATSC 3.03 tuners was supposed to start being sold later this year. Hard to believe someone would come out with new $200+ product without it.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

NashGuy said:


> No idea if PS Vue's DVR features are accessible from within that channel guide or even if Vue's streaming channels are displayed within the same native Fire TV UI as OTA channels or if when you click on a Vue channel in the guide, it merely triggers the Vue app to open and display that live channel. Interesting feature though.


I'd love if it was able to record locally so you didn't need to rely on the "cloud DVR" nonsense and it was actually natively pulling in the video streams from Vue rather than just deep-linking into the app, but I think that's probably too much to hope for.

My money's on it's just data integration and launching the app to that channel. It might combine links to cloud recordings in the DVR app too, and it would at least be nice if you can schedule recordings within the same interface regardless of service.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

tapokata said:


> Reading the Verge article, it sounds like it is transcoding everything to 720p, same as Tablo. If the transcoding, scaling, and de-interlacing is good, then no problem. As I have said, Tablo's transcode of SD based OTA source material really needs some help. Maybe the developers at Amazon have a different secret sauce.


The Star Trek screenshot you posted upthread looks like bad deinterlacing, which may or may not be Tablo's fault. You'd have to compare the original MPEG2 coming from the station. It might be the station's fault.

I'm not sure whether Amazon is going to transcode everything the box streams, or just when it's streaming to certain clients in certain situations. They talked about there being wi-fi direct capabilities, so maybe if it's got a good signal straight to a fireTV it'll use the original MPEG2? Otherwise, the 2 transcoder limit is stupid and really kneecaps the 4-tuner model. You'd have 4 tuners only be able to watch on 2 devices at once. The extra two tuners would only ever be usable for recording something while watching something else which really limits their value.

It would make far more sense to me if the transcoders were only there for streaming to mobile devices & out-of-home.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

AFAICT Amazon itself, and every review I can find, say nothing about the program guide data. I don't understand how such a critical issue is just being ignored. If all it has is the PSIP data, which is incomplete and only goes out a maximum of 2 days, that is a killer to me.

Apparently scheduling features are pretty bare bones, i.e., nothing like a one-pass that would record new shows. (Although some would complain that TiVo doesn't have a properly functioning one-pass feature either.)


----------



## Sgt Howl (Jan 18, 2013)

No commercial skip? That's a major feature for me ...


----------



## jfalkingham (Jul 23, 2002)

No Skip Mode is a detractor to me, but having the ability to skip through recorded content is key. 

Cloud DVRs will forever suck as long as the content owner dictates what you can do with your space. The fact that they can arbitrarily swap recorded for on demand with no FF option tells me it's not my space. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## V7Goose (May 28, 2005)

Personally, I think commercial skip is way overblown and not worth the effort. Yes, I use it when it is available, but I do not trust it - I have seen way too many instances where it went too far (sometimes skipping over half of the program), so I am always wasting time trying to verify it skipped approximately the right amount. I often jump BACK just to test it. Frankly, I am happier to just use the FFx2 and +30sec jump options to skip the commercials myself. As long as the box is responsive and easy to control, these options are far superior to the commercial skip.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I had some problems with SM accuracy in the early days (especially on Syfy), but for me in recent times it's been bullet-proof...when it's there. It's a major plus as far as I'm concerned...not a dealbreaker, but important.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Channels DVR on my ATV has commercial skip on every recorded show and every now and then it skips too far but 95+% of the time it's right on the money. It's not a cloud DVR though, it's using my NAS. I think all of these devices are going to greatly upgrade and improve their products over time. Fixes seem to come quickly and they have very responsive support forums.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

V7Goose said:


> Personally, I think commercial skip is way overblown and not worth the effort. Yes, I use it when it is available, but I do not trust it - I have seen way too many instances where it went too far (sometimes skipping over half of the program), so I am always wasting time trying to verify it skipped approximately the right amount. I often jump BACK just to test it. Frankly, I am happier to just use the FFx2 and +30sec jump options to skip the commercials myself. As long as the box is responsive and easy to control, these options are far superior to the commercial skip.


No issues with SM accuracy here. Works great and definitely one of the best features that they've added.

Scott


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I wonder what it means for TiVo? Right now, they're no longer selling the Roamio OTA, which is the only OTA-only DVR they've ever produced


Are you saying this because it's currently showing out of stock on their website? Wouldn't that be premature to say they are no longer selling it?

Scott


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HerronScott said:


> Are you saying this because it's currently showing out of stock on their website? Wouldn't that be premature to say they are no longer selling it?


Yeah, I guess I should have worded that a bit differently. I didn't mean to imply that the product is officially dead. But it's been out of stock for awhile now from TiVo and Amazon. (Although I just checked BestBuy and it looks like they have some there, on sale for $350. Hurry if you want one!)

It could be that this is just a pause for a month or two and then TiVo will get more of the Roamio OTA Vox back in stock and resume selling them. But I would speculate that being out of stock for a few weeks indicates that they had sold through all that had been produced and there aren't more units sitting in a warehouse somewhere, waiting to be sold. (Although that may not be true.)

TiVo announced back in early May that they're exiting from manufacturing hardware. I don't know the specifics of the contracts involved but it's logical to think that once the manufacturing production runs that were underway at the time were finished, all future manufacturing would be handled by the new external hardware partner.

Given all that, I'm wondering if we're now at a point where the future of the Roamio OTA Vox is dependent on whether the external hardware partner decides to continue producing it. I guess it isn't clear to me exactly how this partnership works and how much autonomy the partner has in terms of business decisions like how many hardware units to produce, how to price them, etc. But I would infer that the partner gets to make those calls since they're the ones in charge of physical product distribution to Amazon, BestBuy and even TiVo.com. If the partner was simply taking orders from TiVo in terms of what to manufacture and how many units to produce, I don't see how that's really any different from the relationship between, say, Apple and Foxconn, which just fulfills Apple's orders to make X number of iPhones.


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

OrangeCrush said:


> The Star Trek screenshot you posted upthread looks like bad deinterlacing, which may or may not be Tablo's fault. You'd have to compare the original MPEG2 coming from the station. It might be the station's fault.


I've compared them, thanks- it's happening on the Tablo. The image was screen capped from a recording played through Tablo's web streaming app, so it's not display influenced. The source broadcast was from the MeTV network, on a sub-channel in SD 480i. The same source was recorded on my TiVo Bolt, and the artifacts aren't visible upon playback. I sent that same screen cap (and a couple of others) to Tablo's excellent customer support group, but the answer was a polite shrug...

To be fair, Tablo's recording of 720p and 1080i source material playback with great image quality.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dlfl said:


> AFAICT Amazon itself, and every review I can find, say nothing about the program guide data. I don't understand how such a critical issue is just being ignored. If all it has is the PSIP data, which is incomplete and only goes out a maximum of 2 days, that is a killer to me.
> 
> Apparently scheduling features are pretty bare bones, i.e., nothing like a one-pass that would record new shows. (Although some would complain that TiVo doesn't have a properly functioning one-pass feature either.)


Their FAQ states that you can schedule recordings up to 14 days in advance, which I would take to mean that it has a standard 14-day program guide. Amazon's isn't relying on crappy PSIP data for this thing. The question is whether they're using guide data from TiVo/Rovi or from Gracenote. Or, who knows, maybe they've developed their own program guide database. Amazon does own IMDB.

As for scheduling, the FAQ says that the default recording preference is to record all episodes for a series but you can change that to record only new/unaired episodes. You can also specify whether or not your recordings must be in HD. You also have the option to have recordings start and/or end a certain number of minutes early/late. Lastly, you can set the maximum number of episodes to keep before the oldest episode is automatically deleted and replaced with a new one. (Default is 20 episodes.) Recordings can be protected so they are never automatically deleted. Sounds like a pretty full set of options to me.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Their FAQ states that you can schedule recordings up to 14 days in advance, which I would take to mean that it has a standard 14-day program guide. Amazon's isn't relying on crappy PSIP data for this thing. The question is whether they're using guide data from TiVo/Rovi or from Gracenote. Or, who knows, maybe they've developed their own program guide database. Amazon does own IMDB.
> 
> As for scheduling, the FAQ says that the default recording preference is to record all episodes for a series but you can change that to record only new/unaired episodes. You can also specify whether or not your recordings must be in HD. You also have the option to have recordings start and/or end a certain number of minutes early/late. Lastly, you can set the maximum number of episodes to keep before the oldest episode is automatically deleted and replaced with a new one. (Default is 20 episodes.) Recordings can be protected so they are never automatically deleted. Sounds like a pretty full set of options to me.


Thanks, I missed that in the FAQ. I hope it does imply guide data going out 14 days. It would be pretty lame if all they mean is you can schedule a timed recording 14 days ahead.

I sent in an email help request asking what source was used for the guide data but the response was just a boilerplate thing that didn't address that issue. I suppose even with Amazon (as with TiVo) we will have to depend on forums and third party reports (e.g., Engadget, etc.) for the details we care about.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Is this just OTA or will it have some sort of skinny bundle channel package attached as well?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

OTA DVR w/local storage. Uses your network to push the live streams or DVR programs to FireTVs, phones and tablets. No channel bundle included.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Is this just OTA or will it have some sort of skinny bundle channel package attached as well?


Batteries sold seperately


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Saturn_V said:


> OTA DVR w/local storage. Uses your network to push the live streams or DVR programs to FireTVs, phones and tablets. No channel bundle included.


Right, no channel bundle included, although they now allow third-party streaming cable channel services to integrate their channels into the native Fire TV program guide grid that Amazon uses for OTA channels as well as any linear channels you get via Amazon Channels (e.g. Showtime, Showtime 2, Showtime Showcase, etc.). The first such third-party service to support this feature is PS Vue. But apparently it's also open to Sling TV, DirecTV Now, Hulu with Live TV, Fubo TV and Philo if those services want to hook their Fire TV apps into this feature. It would be particularly nice, IMO, if Philo supports this feature since that's a service that doesn't include locals.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

mdavej said:


> - No storage expansion


expansion... but you can't just plop in a larger drive?

so no downloading of shows either?

So only 1 TB then is bad.. 4 tuners is a good start though..


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

mattack said:


> expansion... but you can't just plop in a larger drive?
> 
> so no downloading of shows either?
> 
> So only 1 TB then is bad.. 4 tuners is a good start though..


Amazon's words, not mine. Who knows.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mattack said:


> expansion... but you can't just plop in a larger drive?
> 
> so no downloading of shows either?
> 
> So only 1 TB then is bad.. 4 tuners is a good start though..


I read an article about it earlier today that said Amazon told them that they planned to allow USB hard drive attachment in the future to expand storage. We'll see.

And while the more expensive model does have 4 tuners and can therefore record 4 different things at once, it appears that both models only have 2 transcoders and apparently (contrary to my earlier speculation) all outgoing streams are transcoded (to 720p60, likely in H.264). Therefore, only two simultaneous viewing sessions (whether live or recorded TV) are supported on either model.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> It could be that this is just a pause for a month or two and then TiVo will get more of the Roamio OTA Vox back in stock and resume selling them. But I would speculate that being out of stock for a few weeks indicates that they had sold through all that had been produced and there aren't more units sitting in a warehouse somewhere, waiting to be sold. (Although that may not be true.)
> 
> TiVo announced back in early May that they're exiting from manufacturing hardware. I don't know the specifics of the contracts involved but it's logical to think that once the manufacturing production runs that were underway at the time were finished, all future manufacturing would be handled by the new external hardware partner.
> 
> Given all that, I'm wondering if we're now at a point where the future of the Roamio OTA Vox is dependent on whether the external hardware partner decides to continue producing it. I guess it isn't clear to me exactly how this partnership works and how much autonomy the partner has in terms of business decisions like how many hardware units to produce, how to price them, etc. But I would infer that the partner gets to make those calls since they're the ones in charge of physical product distribution to Amazon, BestBuy and even TiVo.com. If the partner was simply taking orders from TiVo in terms of what to manufacture and how many units to produce, I don't see how that's really any different from the relationship between, say, Apple and Foxconn, which just fulfills Apple's orders to make X number of iPhones.


This is what was reported at least with regards to their distribution on TiVo.com. I would assume that their contract with the new manufacturer would specify volumes and models needed for their expectations of sales on TiVo.com ("secure the volumes needed from its new partner for sales made via TiVo.com"). It's possible the Roamio OTA could disappear from retail shelves if the sales aren't there since that's all in the hands of the new manufacturer.

TiVo, he explained, won't produce or contract directly for the manufacturing of TiVo's retail devices, but will secure the volumes needed from its new partner for sales made via TiVo.com.

"In that sense, we're acting as a distribution channel," Rodriguez said. With respect to sales through other retail channels, "we'd be completely out of that transaction."

For consumers, there will be no material change, as products will continue to be branded as TiVo and run the TiVo experience, he added.

TiVo Exiting the Box-Making Business

Scott


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Amazon only allows one recast per Amazon account and only two concurrent streams at a time from a recast.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

W.R.T. storage... remember this is only OTA so chances of using your storage at the same pace you would on a cable TiVo are slim.


----------



## V7Goose (May 28, 2005)

HerronScott said:


> "In that sense, we're acting as a distribution channel," Rodriguez said. With respect to sales through other retail channels, "we'd be completely out of that transaction."
> 
> For consumers, there will be no material change, as products will continue to be branded as TiVo and run the TiVo experience, he added.


Just what we need, ANOTHER third-party company for TiVo to point the finger at when we tell them that something is not working!


----------



## V7Goose (May 28, 2005)

It seems like I have been using TiVo for 20 years, and I absolutely LOVE the functionality and UI (at lest up to TE3). During a three year stint with the TERRIBLE Dish hardware and software I was miserable every time I had to touch the remote.

It would take something amazing to get me to leave TiVo right now. I know it, and I like it. But I'll be honest - If I didn't already have all my TiVo hardware and all this experience with what to expect from a DVR functionality, I do not think I would even consider them today. I'd much rather test the new Amazon DVR than risk money and future with the current Rovi experience.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HerronScott said:


> This is what was reported at least with regards to their distribution on TiVo.com. I would assume that their contract with the new manufacturer would specify volumes and models needed for their expectations of sales on TiVo.com ("secure the volumes needed from its new partner for sales made via TiVo.com"). It's possible the Roamio OTA could disappear from retail shelves if the sales aren't there since that's all in the hands of the new manufacturer.
> 
> TiVo, he explained, won't produce or contract directly for the manufacturing of TiVo's retail devices, but will secure the volumes needed from its new partner for sales made via TiVo.com.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I've read that article before. If I understand you, your interpretation seems to be that TiVo is still actually calling the shots in terms of hardware design and whether a particular model, such as the Roamio OTA, lives or dies -- TiVo will effectively dictate to the partner "Make X number of boxes using our hardware design and specifications so that we can sell those boxes on TiVo.com." And then it's up to the partner to decide how many of those boxes, if any, to make and distribute to other retail channels with which they choose to do business.

I was under the impression that the partner would be more in control of hardware decisions since "TiVo is getting out of the box-making business". I was envisioning a scenario where the partner (using historical TiVo sales data, their own market research, etc.) would get to decide whether to continue manufacturing any given current TiVo hardware design or instead to kill that specific model box and replace it with their own new design which they deem to be more cost-effective, more popular with buyers, etc. In this scenario, TiVo is effectively just acting as one of however many retail distribution channels for whatever hardware products that the partner decides to make, so long as that hardware runs the TiVo software and conforms to certain parameters (e.g. using the classic TiVo remote control design). It would be _sort of_ like the relationship between Google and Samsung if Samsung were the only company making Android phones with Google apps and services.

But, honestly, who knows? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Maybe the partner is required to continue manufacturing the current models until a certain date and then both companies work together to come up with plans for successor models (sort of like how Google collaborated with outside partners such as LG to produce their old line of Nexus phones).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tenthplanet said:


> Why compromise OTA picture quality by streaming it ? This a solution looking for a problem. Live TV streaming services can already do most of this without messing with extra hardware. I had an incident where we had a failure of an OTA recording off on the local Fox station, went to catch it off of VOD on Sling TV(You could also use Hulu). Other than lack of 5.1 surround, it was a lot closer to OTA quality than you would think. With all of the recycled, SD sub channels there are maybe 4 to 5 channels in HD worth recording, and I see one channel with 720 p main channel and eight sub channels of SD . OTA is starting to turn into an expensive hobby. When the current Tivo dies I'm done with OTA, just don't need it anymore.
> I can understand people who might have some use for OTA, but the "picture quality is way better on OTA ship has sailed", and sunk.


One of the reasons why I keep Hulu (ad-free, $12) is that the HD picture quality (and general viewing experience) is better for shows from ABC, NBC and Fox than if I watched those shows from my local OTA stations. Everything just looks sharper and less compressed on Hulu vs. OTA. (Still no 5.1 audio from Hulu on my Apple TV although they did start rolling out 5.1 on a few other devices, at least for their Hulu Originals content.) Yes, the addition of all those SD subchannels has degraded OTA HD picture quality. And then there are the obnoxious on-screen banner ads during shows, as well as weather alerts and news crawlers. None of that with Hulu on-demand. Just have to wait until the next day to watch stuff, which I'm fine with.

That said, if I always got perfect OTA reception, then I _might_ be willing to put more money into an OTA DVR solution and not subscribe to Hulu. But despite trying lots of different antennas in countless different locations and configurations, OTA TV still just "mostly works" for me. There are at least a couple of occasions every month where I switch something off because it's too glitchy. Multipath interference, I think. (I live between 6 and 13 miles from all the major towers, I think.) Given the amount of time I've spent futzing around with antennas as well as various tech solutions (TiVo, Tablo, HDHomeRun), I have to admit that it really has been mainly a hobby. I'm certainly glad that free OTA TV exists. I wouldn't NOT have it since I do still watch it some. But it's more of a "side dish" on my TV plate, with streaming being the main entree.


----------



## PSU77 (Nov 3, 2017)

I see that the FireTv Recast will allow PlaystationVue channels to appear in their Live TV and their Grid. Does that mean you can record a channel from PlaystationVue or only OTA channels?


----------



## humbb (Jan 27, 2014)

PSU77 said:


> I see that the FireTv Recast will allow PlaystationVue channels to appear in their Live TV and their Grid. Does that mean you can record a channel from PlaystationVue or only OTA channels?


OTA only.
See this from the FAQs.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

PSU77 said:


> I see that the FireTv Recast will allow PlaystationVue channels to appear in their Live TV and their Grid. Does that mean you can record a channel from PlaystationVue or only OTA channels?


You do realize PS Vue already has a DVR, right?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Honestly, if I were a PS Vue subscriber, I'd probably just prefer to integrate the live and recorded OTA TV from the Recast into the PS Vue app instead of the other way around. Like how the Sling TV app works with the Air TV network tuner/DVR.


----------



## Rkkeller (May 13, 2004)

I preordered the 4 tuner 1tb model and can't wait. I am big into the Amazon eco system, have the Show, FireTV pendant or Cube attached to every TV but one, 10 wireless cameras and so on. I might be able to get rid of my Tablo if not my TiVo down the road with this if it works out. I still do have a cable card so not a complete cord cutter more like a hybrid cutter as I have rooftop OTA thru my Tablo and ccard in my TiVo for now.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Basically, this is like a Tablo but with no ongoing subscription fee for guide data/DVR service. (It doesn't even require an Amazon Prime subscription for free ongoing service, which I figured it would!) Other differences are that the Fire TV Recast has 500GB or 1TB of built-in storage while Tablos either have no storage or relatively little (requiring an external USB hard drive), and that Tablo can be used in conjunction with lots of different viewing TV-connected devices (Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, etc.) while the Recast will only work with Fire TV. Both support viewing on iOS and Android mobile devices.


I replaced my Roamio with a Tablo, and got a 1 TB HD for $49. Got tons of storage now for next to nothing . It works great, and $5 a month for guide is much cheaper than the $15 that I was paying for the Roamio.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Captainbob said:


> I replaced my Roamio with a Tablo, and got a 1 TB HD for $49.


I was ready to pull the trigger on the exact same move when the Recast announcement came out. The prices of the Recast and Tablo/storage are virtually identical, but the free guide data tips the scales for Recast. I also think Amazon has a better shot at integrating the UI for OTA and streaming services. I'm going for the Recast.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Scooby Doo said:


> I was ready to pull the trigger on the exact same move when the Recast announcement came out. The prices of the Recast and Tablo/storage are virtually identical, but the free guide data tips the scales for Recast. I also think Amazon has a better shot at integrating the UI for OTA and streaming services. I'm going for the Recast.


I think the jury is still out on the "free guide data". We have no direct evidence of the quality of that data and we don't know if it will remain free (including non-Prime members too?). Quality guide data costs non-trivial amounts to produce and to distribute (servers, etc.). Have to wonder if it will continue to be free, even if it initially is.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Honestly, if I were a PS Vue subscriber, I'd probably just prefer to integrate the live and recorded OTA TV from the Recast into the PS Vue app instead of the other way around. Like how the Sling TV app works with the Air TV network tuner/DVR.


Really, and be limited to recording one stream at a time?


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Quality guide data costs non-trivial amounts to produce and to distribute (servers, etc.).


No it doesn't. Every other country has free guide data. The only reason we pay for it in the US is because courts have upheld the absurd claims made by the networks to copyright over the data


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mdavej said:


> Really, and be limited to recording one stream at a time?


No, with a dual-track DVR: cloud DVR for streaming and local DVR for OTA with the latter constrained by the number of tuners (2 or 4). Again, like Sling TV works if you add their Air TV black box with a connected hard drive.

Stream Local HD Channels | AirTV


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dlfl said:


> I think the jury is still out on the "free guide data". We have no direct evidence of the quality of that data and we don't know if it will remain free (including non-Prime members too?). Quality guide data costs non-trivial amounts to produce and to distribute (servers, etc.). Have to wonder if it will continue to be free, even if it initially is.


I would bet that Amazon uses the same channel program guide, from the same data source, for the Fire TV Recast as they've been using for the past year or two to smart TVs that run the Fire TV OS. (Those TVs are known as "Amazon Fire TV Edition TVs" and they're available from a few different budget brands, such as Element, Toshiba and Insignia.) Those TVs have their own built-in OTA tuner and have the same channel guide grid in the native Fire TV UI that is shown in photos and videos for the Recast.

This article from last year at The Verge (a generally reliable source) about a Fire TV Edition TV from Element says the following:

_If you plug in an antenna, the TVs will automatically download local listings with Gracenote and you'll see nice show artwork as you channel surf between networks. There's a straightforward on-screen programming guide with channel names instead of numbers, and TV channels get mixed into your "Recents" area of the Fire TV software, letting you quickly hop between Netflix and a sports game that might be airing on CBS or Fox.
_​So I would say that the new Fire TV Recast will offer a 14-day program guide using data from Gracenote. (The Recast FAQ at Amazon notes that you can schedule recordings up to 14 days in advance, which would necessitate a 14-day guide.) There's every reason in the world to believe that Amazon is extending the same system already in place for their smart TVs over to the upcoming Recast.

(In searching for the article linked above, I also came across this thread here on TCF from over a year ago. Looks like my prediction about Amazon from back then -- post #2 in the thread -- was pretty accurate!)


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Sounds good. I would expect Amazon to be savvy enough not to use Rovi (TiVo) guide data. If they are providing Gracenote data to Fire TV TV's and Recasts for free, I'm puzzled. What is the business model -- that data isn't free?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> If you research specs, it looks like some models of Fire TVs can in fact support hardware decoding of MPEG-2. As I asked in the post that you quoted, if the Recast was designed to stream in H.264 to all clients, like a Tablo does, then why wouldn't it transcode to H.264 BEFORE storing to the hard drive, like a Tablo does? That would conserve hard drive space and allow Amazon to boast a much higher number of storage hours for their device.
> 
> https://www.tablotv.com/blog/tablo-dvr-live-tv-recording-quality-settings/
> 
> When it comes to trick play with live TV, I wonder if that's based off of what the Recast has buffered on its own hard drive/RAM or if that's being done in a local cache in the Fire TV's own RAM. mdavej posted above that the Recast does NOT include the live TV buffer as part of the recording if you begin recording a show after you've tuned into it live. Perhaps that's because the live TV buffer is stored on the local device, not the Recast? If so, that should make trick play more responsive and smoother.


It wouldn't transcode before going to disc because then the audio would need to be messed with


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, I was just reading that article over at The Verge. So apparently it streams all OTA HD to client devices in 720p at 60fps, at least if that article is correct. So maybe it IS transcoding everything? Or only transcoding (and deinterlacing) 1080i and 480i to H.264 720p while leaving 720p HD in the original MPEG-2 (although that seems unlikely)? If everything is getting transcoded before it gets sent out to any and all clients, then I still don't understand why it wouldn't just transcode all incoming signals one time (like Tablo does), as it records to the hard drive, rather than storing content in the original format (thereby taking up more disk space) and having to transcode every time it's viewed thereafter.


It makes no sense to leave it untouched. Part of the reason for transcoding is to have a lower bitrate. And if the Devices are going to be using wireless, you don't want a higher bitrate. since many homes don't have properly setup wifi networks.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> It wouldn't transcode before going to disc because then the audio would need to be messed with


Tablo DOES transcode before recording to disk. Fire TV Recast apparently does not (although I don't think we know for sure yet). Tablo and Fire TV Recast are direct competitors, the exact same kind of product.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> It makes no sense to leave it untouched. Part of the reason for transcoding is to have a lower bitrate. And if the Devices are going to be using wireless, you don't want a higher bitrate. since many homes don't have properly setup wifi networks.


If it provides a better connection, the Recast will use wi-fi direct with a Fire TV box/stick rather than going through the home's wi-fi router. Either way, if you have a good 802.11AC connection, it's feasible to stream the original untouched MPEG-2 ATSC 1.0 program stream. HDHomeRun network tuners support that. But it seems as though the Recast does not, instead opting to transcode everything prior to streaming to client devices. Will be good to see confirmation of exactly how this new product operates.


----------



## PSU77 (Nov 3, 2017)

mdavej said:


> You do realize PS Vue already has a DVR, right?


Yes but it isn't always reliable. We get a lot of error messages on recordings.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Captainbob said:


> I replaced my Roamio with a Tablo, and got a 1 TB HD for $49. Got tons of storage now for next to nothing . It works great, and $5 a month for guide is much cheaper than the $15 that I was paying for the Roamio.


Why not go with a Roamio OTA which comes with All-in service so no monthly costs (and 1TB drive)?

Scott


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

HerronScott said:


> Why not go with a Roamio OTA which comes with All-in service so no monthly costs (and 1TB drive)?
> Scott


Because the Recast supports out of home streaming, integrates OTA and streamed services in the UI , supports a wider range of apps, and is more than $100 cheaper?


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Scooby Doo said:


> Because the Recast supports out of home streaming, integrates OTA and streamed services in the UI , supports a wider range of apps, and is more than $100 cheaper?


I was responding to Captainbob who had a Roamio Basic but replaced it with a Tablo&#8230;. (note the quote) 

Scott


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Tablo DOES transcode before recording to disk. Fire TV Recast apparently does not (although I don't think we know for sure yet). Tablo and Fire TV Recast are direct competitors, the exact same kind of product.


According to this usually accurate source (AFTVNews.com) we know that Recast records videos as broadcast (1080i or 720p Mpeg2) then transcodes to 1440x720 H.264 on the fly to serve (a maximum of two) streaming clients:
Video recording, storage, and playback details for the Amazon Fire TV Recast

I run a Roamio Base model, currently configured for cable tv, and a Fire TV. The Roamio has a lifetime sub so, if I cut cable tv, I can reconfigure it to antenna tuners and have an OTA DVR with free program guide data (such as it is). However I can see two significant advantages of the Recast in that case:
1. Gracenote program guide data (apparently free).
2. Integration with the Fire TV, giving a single program guide, and eliminating the nuisance of having to switch between TiVo and Fire TV, which has a poor WAF in our home.
Not sure whether those advantages are enough to justify the cost of the Recast, but it's nice to know the option is there.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dlfl said:


> According to this usually accurate source (AFTVNews.com) we know that Recast records videos as broadcast (1080i or 720p Mpeg2) then transcodes to 1440x720 H.264 on the fly to serve (a maximum of two) streaming clients:
> Video recording, storage, and playback details for the Amazon Fire TV Recast
> 
> I run a Roamio Base model, currently configured for cable tv, and a Fire TV. The Roamio has a lifetime sub so, if I cut cable tv, I can reconfigure it to antenna tuners and have an OTA DVR with free program guide data (such as it is). However I can see two significant advantages of the Recast in that case:
> ...


So Amazon made the decision to record broadcasts in their original pristine MPEG-2 format (taking up more disk space) yet still bother with transcoding everything to H.264 at a max resolution of 720p60 each time anything is watched, whether live or recorded, even if the client device and the wifi connection is powerful enough to have handled the original format (e.g. MPEG-2 1080i). That's the part I don't get. But maybe even the most powerful Fire TV device available would have trouble smoothly decoding and de-interlacing the original MPEG-2 1080i? I didn't think that would be a problem (assuming one has a solid network connection between the Recast and the Fire TV) but maybe I'm wrong.

But surely most (all?) Fire TV devices in use can easily decode 1080p60 H.264 video, right? Why not allow the Recast to transcode MPEG-2 1080i recordings to that format at the time of viewing? Why must everything get knocked down to lowly 720p? Tablo doesn't force that on you. You can opt to have 1080i MPEG-2 stored to disk as high-quality 1080p H.264 (with 720p MPEG-2 stored as 720p H.264). To me, that's a key point in Tablo's favor over the Recast.

I do understand the decision to store the broadcasts in their original format and do the transcoding on-the-fly at the time of viewing in order to optimize the transcoded bitrate and resolution based on the capabilities of the client device and the quality of the connection between the Recast and the client. When watching on a phone away from home, when the stream must travel from the Recast via wifi to the home router, then over the wired internet, then via LTE to a phone with a weak signal, that would likely require the stream to be transcoded to a lower bitrate, and possibly even down to 480p SD resolution. So in a case like that, even if the broadcast had been transcoded BEFORE being stored to disk at, say, high-bitrate 720p H.264, it might still need to be transcoded AGAIN at the time of viewing in order to avoid lots of buffering for the viewer. And the more hardware transcoders you include in the product, the more expensive it is.

It seems to me that Amazon engineers gave greater priority to ensuring an uninterrupted viewing experience for out-of-home viewers than they gave to ensuring the highest possible picture quality for in-home viewers. That's not a choice I prefer but YMMV.

One last thought: I'll bet channel surfing for live TV viewers kinda sucks with the Recast. When I had a Tablo for a couple months at the start of this year, I found the time it took to change channels to be an absolute deal-breaker to use the Tablo for live TV viewing. But Tablo at least now allows the user to set different transcoding settings for live vs. recorded TV and they've apparently been able to get the number of seconds for live channel changes down somewhat.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

We don't know for sure, but it would not surprise me if Recast uses the original MPEG2 bit stream at say 15 Mbps for distribution over home networks of high bandwidth. Apparently all Fire TV devices support MPEG2 decoding which would support this theory, but trying to describe this in the press release would have caused confusion. Transcoding an ATSC MPEG2 bitstream to H264 60P at half the bitrate won't cause any loss of quality and makes the stream much more manageable over a variety of networks. Yes, MPEG2 really is that bad but OTA is stuck with it.


----------



## heyted (Mar 4, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> So Amazon made the decision to record broadcasts in their original pristine MPEG-2 format (taking up more disk space) yet still bother with transcoding everything to H.264 at a max resolution of 720p60 each time anything is watched, whether live or recorded, even if the client device and the wifi connection is powerful enough to have handled the original format (e.g. MPEG-2 1080i). That's the part I don't get.
> 
> I do understand the decision to store the broadcasts in their original format and do the transcoding on-the-fly at the time of viewing in order to optimize the transcoded bitrate and resolution based on the capabilities of the client device and the quality of the connection between the Recast and the client. When watching on a phone away from home, when the stream must travel from the Recast via wifi to the home router, then over the wired internet, then via LTE to a phone with a weak signal, that would likely require the stream to be transcoded to a lower bitrate, and possibly even down to 480p SD resolution.


For the case of viewing in the home, my guess is that it was a design simplification to assume the home network cannot handle the original format and to ensure the highest possibility of not having interruptions with WiFi. From the quote here, Amazon claims "the Fire TV Recast delivers the most reliable video streams over Wi-Fi of any over-the-air DVR."


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

heyted said:


> For the case of viewing in the home, my guess is that it was a design simplification to assume the home network cannot handle the original format and to ensure the highest possibility of not having interruptions with WiFi. *From the quote here, Amazon claims "the Fire TV Recast delivers the most reliable video streams over Wi-Fi of any over-the-air DVR."*


Them's fighting words to TiVo . . . .


----------



## cldlhd (Sep 23, 2018)

tenthplanet said:


> Why compromise OTA picture quality by streaming it ? This a solution looking for a problem. Live TV streaming services can already do most of this without messing with extra hardware. I had an incident where we had a failure of an OTA recording off on the local Fox station, went to catch it off of VOD on Sling TV(You could also use Hulu). Other than lack of 5.1 surround, it was a lot closer to OTA quality than you would think. With all of the recycled, SD sub channels there are maybe 4 to 5 channels in HD worth recording, and I see one channel with 720 p main channel and eight sub channels of SD . OTA is starting to turn into an expensive hobby. When the current Tivo dies I'm done with OTA, just don't need it anymore.
> I can understand people who might have some use for OTA, but the "picture quality is way better on OTA ship has sailed", and sunk.


Now you tell me , I just got OTA with my clearstream 4max I put in last week.....
May be a stupid question but any word on whether you'll be able to connect to the Recast using a TV's native Prime Video app? I have a LG 4k oled that is hard wired with cat6, I would prefer using that over my FireTV stick


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

From the AFTVnews.com article linked earlier:


> ..... transcoded to H.264 with a maximum resolution of 1440×720 at 60 frames per second. This is done to ensure compatibility with a wide range of devices, including older Fire TVs that cannot de-interlace 1080i video.


A quality H.264 transcode at 720p, 60fps, actually provides more lines per second than 1080i at 60fps by a ratio of 720/540. The horizontal pixels are less by a ratio of 1440/1920. Overall the pixels-per-second being delivered is identical. Assuming the transcoder does a quality job, I question the assumption that a significant sacrifice in PQ is implied by the 720p transcoding. Of course the effect of different bitrates could tilt the comparison considerably.

It's going to be interesting to see how it really does on PQ, and also the channel changing delay time, although anything under 3 secs will beat my Roamio with CableCARD.


----------



## eherberg (Feb 17, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> But surely most (all?) Fire TV devices in use can easily decode 1080p60 H.264 video, right? Why not allow the Recast to transcode MPEG-2 1080i recordings to that format at the time of viewing? Why must everything get knocked down to lowly 720p? Tablo doesn't force that on you. You can opt to have 1080i MPEG-2 stored to disk as high-quality 1080p H.264 (with 720p MPEG-2 stored as 720p H.264). To me, that's a key point in Tablo's favor over the Recast.


Not all Fire TV devices can do 1080p60. The sticks (probably their most popular devices due to the price point) top out at 1080p30. Gen 3 Fire devices onwards supports 1080p60. At least even the stick supports mpeg2 - which is more than Roku can say. None of the Fire TV devices does deinterlacing well. Kodi, MrMc, Plex, etc - all have to allow for interlaced content and do it with sometimes intense CPU cycles.



dlfl said:


> Assuming the transcoder does a quality job, I question the assumption that a significant sacrifice in PQ is implied by the 720p transcoding. Of course the effect of different bitrates could tilt the comparison considerably.


Yeah -- I always roll my eyes a bit when reading the PQ-zealot crowd talk about the greatness of 1080i -- usually for no greater reason than the number of digits to represent '1080' is one more than the number needed to type '720'. In my preferred home scenario - if all interlaced content could go away forever and be replaced by progressive, it would be fine by me. In all of the preferred devices we use to consume content at our house - the interlaced problem is always the most expensive processing-wise to work around. Handling it up-front and converting to progressive is just fine by me.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

eherberg said:


> Not all Fire TV devices can do 1080p60. The sticks (probably their most popular devices due to the price point) top out at 1080p30.
> 
> .


True for the Gen 1 stick but not for the current one. I use them at 1080p60 all the time with a wired network connection.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> If it provides a better connection, the Recast will use wi-fi direct with a Fire TV box/stick rather than going through the home's wi-fi router. Either way, if you have a good 802.11AC connection, it's feasible to stream the original untouched MPEG-2 ATSC 1.0 program stream. HDHomeRun network tuners support that. But it seems as though the Recast does not, instead opting to transcode everything prior to streaming to client devices. Will be good to see confirmation of exactly how this new product operates.


Yes it's easy to stream. Even over wireless N there should be no issue. The problem is a very large percentage of homes do not have properly setup wifi networks. And that is where the problem can be.


----------



## V7Goose (May 28, 2005)

I think way too many people get hung up on theoretical numbers without any real understanding of PQ.

Personally, I find 720p TOTALLY acceptable for most things, ESPECIALLY for anything currently available OTA! I am not positive I can tell a real difference 100% of the time, but I prefer 720p to 1080i.

Over 10 years, I recorded/archived multiple thousands of movies and other programs from my S3 TiVo and FiOS, and after exhaustive testing with my then top-of-the-line Sony HD at its max 1080i resolution, I found that 780p output form both my S3 TiVos and DVD players was every bit as good as anything I could display at 1080i, so using 720p for all of my recording was a no-brainer for the greatly reduced file sizes.

Even after I added a Bolt to the system, where I didn't need to capture the output from that box for archiving, I still prefer it connected to that Sony TV with 720p. So for anyone who actually wants to WATCH OTA TV instead of pontificate about it, I think Amazon is very wise to use 720p with this new device. Yeah, they may loose some sales with the "numbers" guys, but I doubt that is the customer they are targeting anyway.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

eherberg said:


> Not all Fire TV devices can do 1080p60. The sticks (probably their most popular devices due to the price point) top out at 1080p30. Gen 3 Fire devices onwards supports 1080p60. At least even the stick supports mpeg2 - which is more than Roku can say. None of the Fire TV devices does deinterlacing well. Kodi, MrMc, Plex, etc - all have to allow for interlaced content and do it with sometimes intense CPU cycles.
> 
> Yeah -- I always roll my eyes a bit when reading the PQ-zealot crowd talk about the greatness of 1080i -- usually for no greater reason than the number of digits to represent '1080' is one more than the number needed to type '720'. In my preferred home scenario - if all interlaced content could go away forever and be replaced by progressive, it would be fine by me. In all of the preferred devices we use to consume content at our house - the interlaced problem is always the most expensive processing-wise to work around. Handling it up-front and converting to progressive is just fine by me.


I'll take 1080i over 720P any day. It has much more resolution if deinterlaced properly. Just look at the football games from Fox and CBS. There is much more detail from CBS at 1080i than from Fox at 720P. The difference is very noticeable during the games.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

V7Goose said:


> I think way too many people get hung up on theoretical numbers without any real understanding of PQ.
> 
> Personally, I find 720p TOTALLY acceptable for most things, ESPECIALLY for anything currently available OTA! I am not positive I can tell a real difference 100% of the time, but I prefer 720p to 1080i.
> 
> ...


There can definitely be a big difference. It really depends on the local broadcaster. My HD recordings I have from way back in 2001 to 2004, put to shame anything broadcast in my area now. Back then there were not a bunch of subchannels robbing bandwidth from the main channel. Now All the main channels have much lower bandwidth because of all the subchannels being broadcast. But since both the 720P and 1080i broadcasts are lower bitrates then they were years ago, you can still see more detail from the 1080i ones.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Quality encodings require sufficient bitrate, which IMHO means the perceived PQ would not increase if bitrate was increased. Sufficient bitrate is a requirement but not a guarantee, i.e., you can botch the encoding even with sufficient bitrate. Meaningful PQ comparisons (e.g., 720p vs. 1080i) can only be done if both videos are quality encodings.

But really the proof is in the pudding -- what is the PQ of the Recast transcodings?


----------



## V7Goose (May 28, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> I'll take 1080i over 720P any day. It has much more resolution if deinterlaced properly. Just look at the football games from Fox and CBS. There is much more detail from CBS at 1080i than from Fox at 720P. The difference is very noticeable during the games.


I believe you are comparing totally irrelevant and very different things that have NOTHING to do with the end resolution. As you yourself have said in other posts, modern OTA broadcasters have chosen to divvy-up their total available bandwidth between multiple channels, so it is absolutely impossible to compare one to another based on anything at all except end PQ. And you cannot knowledgeably blame or credit that end PQ on any one thing.

I'll offer this point for consideration - way back at the height of the initial HD wave (pre 4K), Consumer reports spent a lot of time each year testing the new HD TVs, and they had several detailed discussions about the difference between 1080i and 720p capable sets. They found that using the SAME source media, some 720p sets produced a better PQ than some 1080i sets. While I do disagree with a lot of what CR says on some subjects, I do not find fault with their objective side-by-side comparisons. THOSE comparisons were apples-to-apples, and they rated the video hardware only - but at a minimum, it proved that 720p is not inherently worse than 1080i.

In the example you offered, the ONLY viable comparison you could make for 1080i vs 720p is to take a good signal from CBS and save it in both formats, then compare the playback on the same hardware and see if you thought the 1080i was still better. And even then, your comparison would be somewhat flawed due to the unknown issues with the transcoder used. I have done a lot of trancoding of various media with different software products, and even excellent source material can be made to look like garbage with poor software or poor configuration settings.

To get back to the original subject - we really need the output of the new Amazon box compared directly with the output of your preferred 1080i hardware side-by-side to say anything intelligent about Amazon's choice.

There are some of us who find interlaced pictures inferior to progressive. I am one of those people.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> No, with a dual-track DVR: cloud DVR for streaming and local DVR for OTA with the latter constrained by the number of tuners (2 or 4). Again, like Sling TV works if you add their Air TV black box with a connected hard drive.
> 
> Stream Local HD Channels | AirTV


Still not seeing how it would be better to record one stream from PS Vue (which I highly doubt will even be possible) rather than record unlimited streams in the PS Vue app itself.

I'm also not seeing where AirTV records Sling TV channels in your link.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Yes it's easy to stream. Even over wireless N there should be no issue. The problem is a very large percentage of homes do not have properly setup wifi networks. And that is where the problem can be.


Seemingly a reason why TiVo hasn't endorsed a wireless system. It will be interesting to see how this fares with Amazon.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

V7Goose said:


> Personally, I think commercial skip is way overblown and not worth the effort. Yes, I use it when it is available, but I do not trust it - I have seen way too many instances where it went too far (sometimes skipping over half of the program), so I am always wasting time trying to verify it skipped approximately the right amount. I often jump BACK just to test it. Frankly, I am happier to just use the FFx2 and +30sec jump options to skip the commercials myself. As long as the box is responsive and easy to control, these options are far superior to the commercial skip.


It's very rare that I've run into Skip problems. I think only around eight or ten times with my recordings since they first introduced Skip. 99% of the time it has been fine with my recordings that have Skip mode.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Wading in to the 1080i vs 720p debate for a minute: it really doesn't matter which one is objectively "better," that choice has already been made for you by the station. The best you can get is whatever format they're sending and minimize the number of conversions that happen after. Modern TVs can display exactly one resolution, anything else is getting reprocessed internally.

Native 720p will always look better than 1080i deinterlaced and rescaled to 720p, and native 1080i will always look better than 720p that has been rescaled and interlaced to 1080i, so I dislike Amazon's 720p-for-all approach. I usually prefer to let the TV decide how to process the incoming video. It might not always have the best processing, but it at least has the final processing.

Amazon's DVR would be a lot more appealing to me if it was throwing around native MPEG2, but I get that's not reliable on a typical home wifi network with a single access point provided by the cable company tucked away on a shelf somewhere. I still wish that was just the fallback for crappy networks and those of us with really good home networks ought to be able to get the native streams.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Quality encodings require sufficient bitrate, which IMHO means the perceived PQ would not increase if bitrate was increased. Sufficient bitrate is a requirement but not a guarantee, i.e., you can botch the encoding even with sufficient bitrate. Meaningful PQ comparisons (e.g., 720p vs. 1080i) can only be done if both videos are quality encodings.
> 
> But really the proof is in the pudding -- what is the PQ of the Recast transcodings?


We are talking about OTA content. It's very rarely close to high quality any more.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

V7Goose said:


> I believe you are comparing totally irrelevant and very different things that have NOTHING to do with the end resolution. As you yourself have said in other posts, modern OTA broadcasters have chosen to divvy-up their total available bandwidth between multiple channels, so it is absolutely impossible to compare one to another based on anything at all except end PQ. And you cannot knowledgeably blame or credit that end PQ on any one thing.
> 
> I'll offer this point for consideration - way back at the height of the initial HD wave (pre 4K), Consumer reports spent a lot of time each year testing the new HD TVs, and they had several detailed discussions about the difference between 1080i and 720p capable sets. They found that using the SAME source media, some 720p sets produced a better PQ than some 1080i sets. While I do disagree with a lot of what CR says on some subjects, I do not find fault with their objective side-by-side comparisons. THOSE comparisons were apples-to-apples, and they rated the video hardware only - but at a minimum, it proved that 720p is not inherently worse than 1080i.
> 
> ...


Yes if I take a 1080i broadcast and output it in 720P, typically I can see the lower resolution difference from being output in a lower resolution. Now is that difference a big deal? For the majority of people I'm sure it isn't. And for me it wouldn't be either for the majority of time. But not for everything I watch.


----------



## eherberg (Feb 17, 2011)

jcthorne said:


> True for the Gen 1 stick but not for the current one. I use them at 1080p60 all the time with a wired network connection.


Not according to Amazon's own specs (which were linked in the original): Device Specifications for Fire TV | Amazon Fire TV


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

OMG it's the 1080i vs 720p wars all over again! I thought we had agreed to disagree about this twenty years ago.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Yes if I take a 1080i broadcast and output it in 720P, typically I can see the lower resolution difference from being output in a lower resolution. .......


That result is not general -- it depends on how the 1080i was converted to 720p, which you have not stated.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> I'll take 1080i over 720P any day. It has much more resolution if deinterlaced properly. Just look at the football games from Fox and CBS. There is much more detail from CBS at 1080i than from Fox at 720P. The difference is very noticeable during the games.


Yes, NFL football on my local CBS (1080i) vs. Fox (720p) station is the main example that comes to mind for me too. It's when you're looking at fine detail on small objects (like football players on a full-field shot) that you can see the benefit of those additional pixels that the 1080i picture offers -- over twice as many pixels as 720p has (2,073,600 vs. 921,600 pixels).

That said, no, I can't always tell the difference between 1080i (or 1080p) and 720p. Other factors obviously come into play, chiefly, how is the signal compressed. I would rather watch lightly compressed 720p than aggressively compressed 1080i (or 1080p).

Another thing I'd add in the 720p vs. 1080i debate is that, if you have a 1080p TV, the picture that ultimately gets displayed on your screen is 1080p, not 720p or 1080i. IMO, TVs are generally better able to de-interlace 1080i to 1080p than they are able to upscale 720p to 1080p. Creating smooth progressive scan motion from an interlaced signal is easier than adding in missing pixels and details to create a sharper image from a lower-resolution signal. So, assuming equal relative levels of compression, I prefer 1080i over 720p.

That said, streaming boxes/sticks are generally not as capable of de-interlacing video as TVs. My Apple TV 4K does it handily -- the Channels app uses its own video progressing engine that offers different user-selectable video de-interlacing methods. But then Apple TVs are much more powerful than the average Fire TV or Roku, which is one reason they cost more. I'm not sure why TV-connected streamers can't or don't have the option of just passing through interlaced video (e.g. 1080i) and allowing the TV to do the de-interlacing as they do with 1080i OTA channels from their internal tuners. I imagine that would take some kind of cooperation between the box/stick and the TV that isn't specified/standardized in the HDMI connection.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I'll take 1080i over 720P any day. It has much more resolution if deinterlaced properly. Just look at the football games from Fox and CBS. There is much more detail from CBS at 1080i than from Fox at 720P. The difference is very noticeable during the games.


Some of the best PQ I've seen on sports was abc or espn or fox. PQ relies on a lot more than 720p or 1080i. The entire chain from camera to your door has so much affect.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

TonyD79 said:


> Some of the best PQ I've seen on sports was abc or espn or fox. PQ relies on a lot more than 720p or 1080i. The entire chain from camera to your door has so much affect.


I have found the best overall test for sports is the NHL. Not the game as much as the ads. When the camera is trying to follow the puck, look at the ads and notice the amount of blurring. True, many factors affect this including the TV. But it's a really good test, along with a windy forest.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Scooby Doo said:


> OMG it's the 1080i vs 720p wars all over again! I thought we had agreed to disagree about this twenty years ago.


The war will never be over until everything goes to 1080p.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The war will never be over until everything goes to 1080p.


Which unfortunately won't happen anytime soon. If ever.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> Which unfortunately won't happen anytime soon. If ever.


Forever is a long time. I have little doubt it will happen eventually, but it could take a very long time.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Scooby Doo said:


> OMG it's the 1080i vs 720p wars all over again! I thought we had agreed to disagree about this twenty years ago.





tarheelblue32 said:


> The war will never be over until everything goes to 1080p.





aaronwt said:


> Which unfortunately won't happen anytime soon. If ever.





tarheelblue32 said:


> Forever is a long time. I have little doubt it will happen eventually, but it could take a very long time.


LOL Hate to see this back-and-forth die. I'll bet on 12.37 years.

Seriously, I'm eager to see some reviews and user reports on the Recast.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> So Amazon made the decision to record broadcasts in their original pristine MPEG-2 format (taking up more disk space) yet still bother with transcoding everything to H.264 at a max resolution of 720p60 each time anything is watched, whether live or recorded, even if the client device and the wifi connection is powerful enough to have handled the original format (e.g. MPEG-2 1080i). That's the part I don't get.


I don't get that either. Real-time transcoding should only be for the devices that can't do MPEG2, (phones & Tablets) If the network can support MPEG2's bit rate,(~17Mb/s) and there are FireTVs, then it should stream the original MPEG2-TS. Same as TiVo's stream recorded programs between DVRs and TiVo minis. Sames as Silicon Dust HD Home Runs.



NashGuy said:


> But maybe even the most powerful Fire TV device available would have trouble smoothly decoding and de-interlacing the original MPEG-2 1080i? I didn't think that would be a problem (assuming one has a solid network connection between the Recast and the Fire TV) but maybe I'm wrong.


The first blu-ray issue of The Terminator was in MPEG2. The FireTVs handled it fine.



OrangeCrush said:


> Amazon's DVR would be a lot more appealing to me if it was throwing around native MPEG2, but I get that's not reliable on a typical home wifi network with a single access point provided by the cable company tucked away on a shelf somewhere. I still wish that was just the fallback for crappy networks and those of us with really good home networks ought to be able to get the native streams.


It's notable that the Fire TV Recast comes equipped with a Gigabit Ethernet port. And I do think anyone with at least 801.11ac router will be able to move MPEG2 across wifi just fine. I'm hoping the box is smart enough to figure out which is needed.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Yeah, other than just noting it's there, there is nothing about any use for the ethernet port in the Amazon specs or FAQs. My Fire TV is ethernet connected and I would hope there would be some advantage to using the Recast ethernet connection to my router. The way the Amazon docs read you almost get the impression they don't intend you to use the ethernet port.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dlfl said:


> Yeah, other than just noting it's there, there is nothing about any use for the ethernet port in the Amazon specs or FAQs. My Fire TV is ethernet connected and I would hope there would be some advantage to using the Recast ethernet connection to my router. The way the Amazon docs read you almost get the impression they don't intend you to use the ethernet port.


Yeah, why include an Ethernet port if it can't be used? Surely it can. I connect everything important in my video chain (Apple TV, HDHomeRun tuner, iMac used for storing recordings and other media) to the router via Ethernet.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

ah30k said:


> W.R.T. storage... remember this is only OTA so chances of using your storage at the same pace you would on a cable TiVo are slim.


I do record a lot of cable stuff, but my *prime time* is dominated by OTA (rebroadcasts)... and those ones are by far the biggest recordings too (since on cable, the HD non-OTA rebroadcasts are mostly if not completely MPEG4, which are MUCH smaller).


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Saturn_V said:


> And I do think anyone with at least 801.11ac router will be able to move MPEG2 across wifi just fine.


Well, not _anyone_ with an AC Router. Like I mentioned, the cable companies give out those crappy all-in-one modem/router/voip boxes and put them wherever is most convenient for the installer. Obstacles in between and the overall home network and signal environment are going to make a big impact, so I completely understand why Amazon _falls back_ to transcoding. But the box should also be able to determine if the network is solid enough for MPEG2 and go with that if it is.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Amazon would want the lowest bitrate possible. The lower the bitrate the less likely people will have issues.

On my home network I could stream full bandwidth 19Mb/s broadcast MPEG2 over 802.11n all day with zero issues But I have a properly setup wifi network with five Access Points using AC, N, and g(for my fitbit scale since it doesn't have wireless N). So every inch has excellent signal strength, no congestion, and can get the maximum speeds. Most dwellings only have one AP to cover everything. Which is nowhere near a properly setup wifi network.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

eherberg said:


> Not according to Amazon's own specs (which were linked in the original): Device Specifications for Fire TV | Amazon Fire TV


Well I have the device and its outputting 1080p60 to my set and my capture device. The stream info shows 1080p60 as well from Amazon, Hulu and Netflix. The specs are outdated then.

Looking at the spec page I see some other discrepancies as well. It supports H.264 up to level 4.1, (1080p) not just 4.0. Plex runs direct stream at 1080p60 h.264 level 4.1 on the device so it obviously has the hardware to support it.

Further it states that wired ethernet is not supported. That is also no longer true, the amazon ethernet dongle used for the current gen FireTV also is supported on the fire stick. 100Mbit Ethernet wired connection.

Seems they did some software updates and never updated the specs on the developer pages. No wonder developers like Plex have trouble supporting them.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jcthorne said:


> Well I have the device and its outputting 1080p60 to my set and my capture device. The stream info shows 1080p60 as well from Amazon, Hulu and Netflix. The specs are outdated then.


That's a gen 2 FireTV stick and is still the current version. It was probably updated. But What about the gen 1? I have several of those. But I haven't connected them to anything in ages. I had only paid $20 for them which is why I bought several at the time.
The Gen 1 is probably still limited to 1080P30 since it has lower specs than the current one.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

OrangeCrush said:


> Obstacles in between and the overall home network and signal environment are going to make a big impact, so I completely understand why Amazon _falls back_ to transcoding. But the box should also be able to determine if the network is solid enough for MPEG2 and go with that if it is.


Yes. And keep in mind that Amazon could have also chosen to support transcoding to 1080p60 in H.264 at, say, 10 Mbps (like Tablo offers in their highest quality setting). I imagine there would be scenarios -- based on the client device and the network conditions -- where it would be sub-optimal to stream the original 1080i60 MPEG-2 broadcast file but 1080p60 H.264 would be do-able.

When I had a Tablo, I set recording quality to its highest setting and I really never noticed any different in quality between it and viewing live feeds in the original MPEG-2 from the TV's built-in tuner. I'm sure that had I done side-by-side pixel peeping, I could have seen the effects of the additional compression. But then I don't watch TV that way.

Will be interesting to read real-world user reviews of the new Recast.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> So Amazon made the decision to record broadcasts in their original pristine MPEG-2 format (taking up more disk space) yet still bother with transcoding everything to H.264 at a max resolution of 720p60 each time anything is watched, whether live or recorded, even if the client device and the wifi connection is powerful enough to have handled the original format (e.g. MPEG-2 1080i).


As usual NashGuy, excellent post that really cuts to the core of the issues here. This is the same thing that I'm wondering here. It makes no sense to transcode everything to 720p, yet that's what Comcast does for all their customers nationwide (except for locals). I'm guessing that they are betting most people won't notice, and unfortunately, they're right, most people are completely oblivious to picture quality.



Scooby Doo said:


> Yes, MPEG2 really is that bad but OTA is stuck with it.


There's nothing wrong with MPEG-2 itself. It produces gorgeous HD at 1080i60 19.3mbps. The problem is that virtually no channels are broadcast today anywhere close to the original 19.3mbps, and even with improvements in encoding that enable similar quality to the original 19.3mbps channels at around 12mbps, most channels have instead taken that technology and now are cramming 2 HD and several SD channels into a single ATSC-8VSB channel, resulting in average bitrates in the 7-8mbps range, which is just terrible.



eherberg said:


> Yeah -- I always roll my eyes a bit when reading the PQ-zealot crowd talk about the greatness of 1080i -- usually for no greater reason than the number of digits to represent '1080' is one more than the number needed to type '720'.


That's not it at all. I can SEE the difference. 1080i just looks much sharper and clearer to me. High bitrate 720p can be decent, but it will never have the same level of detail as 1080i. The problem that 1080i had is crappy de-interlacers. When people watch 1080i on their $300 Wal-Mart TV, it looks like crap, because the TV's de-interlacer is crap. When I had MPEG-2 cable, I ran everything through a $500 DVDO EDGE video processor that handled the de-interlacing, and fed 1080p out to my TV, which ensured that interlaced video looked just as good as progressive video, meaning that 1080i was superior to 720p on my setup.



V7Goose said:


> I'll offer this point for consideration - way back at the height of the initial HD wave (pre 4K), Consumer reports spent a lot of time each year testing the new HD TVs, and they had several detailed discussions about the difference between 1080i and 720p capable sets. They found that using the SAME source media, some 720p sets produced a better PQ than some 1080i sets. While I do disagree with a lot of what CR says on some subjects, I do not find fault with their objective side-by-side comparisons. THOSE comparisons were apples-to-apples, and they rated the video hardware only - but at a minimum, it proved that 720p is not inherently worse than 1080i.


Consumer Reports doesn't know their head from their derriere when it comes to electronics. Maybe cars or washing machines, but not electronics. I've read a number of articles about electronics in CR and walked away wondering how on earth they got the "results" that they did.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> There's nothing wrong with MPEG-2 itself. It produces gorgeous HD at 1080i60 19.3mbps.


Well sure, any codec will produce gorgeous HD at 1080i60 19.3mbps. The point is H264 will produce the same quality at half the bit rate. Not just me saying that by the way, it's the results of the subjective video quality assessments. It's why nobody uses MPEG-2 anymore, except OTA who are stuck with it


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Scooby Doo said:


> Well sure, any codec will produce gorgeous HD at 1080i60 19.3mbps. The point is H264 will produce the same quality at half the bit rate. Not just me saying that by the way, it's the results of the subjective video quality assessments. It's why nobody uses MPEG-2 anymore, except OTA who are stuck with it


Well not with ATSC 3.0 which will be coming soon. With that they can use HEVC.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Well not with ATSC 3.0 which will be coming soon. With that they can use HEVC.


I will believe ATSC 3.0 when I see it with my own eyes. What are they going to do, knock the old HD signal back to SD so they can make space for ATSC 3.0? I can't wait for the messaging on that: "Sorry, we reduced your HD signal to SD, but if you buy one of our new and improved HDTVs you will get even better HD!" I am sure that will go down well!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Scooby Doo said:


> I will believe ATSC 3.0 when I see it with my own eyes. What are they going to do, knock the old HD signal back to SD so they can make space for ATSC 3.0? I can't wait for the messaging on that: "Sorry, we reduced your HD signal to SD, but if you buy one of our new and improved HDTVs you will get even better HD!" I am sure that will go down well!


Pretty much. They will have the light house stations with a bunch of the local broadcasters combined. Stuffing all their content in there so people with legacy equipment can still watch it. But since the vast majority of people get the content from cable, I'm sure the broadcasters aren't worried. Around here they have fiber feeds to the cable companies for the local channels.

i would certainly never buy a TV for the Tuner in it. I would buy an external box. Even twenty five years ago I time shifted all my TV watching with VCRs. No way would I ever want to go back to watching live TV with a TV tuner. I would rather watch nothing.

Although I see my new TCl 6 Series Tv has an option to stick a flash drive in the USB port on the TV. And then you can have a 90 minute buffer. But I don't really see how that would be much different than watching live TV since it's still just one tuner and it doesn't record.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> i would certainly never buy a TV for the Tuner in it. I would buy an external box


Agreed. Question is what about an OTA DVR like Tivo or Fire TV Recast when it launches? OK it's not a $1000 TV but it isn't a $30 stick either


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Consumer Reports doesn't know their head from their derriere when it comes to electronics. Maybe cars or washing machines, but not electronics. I've read a number of articles about electronics in CR and walked away wondering how on earth they got the "results" that they did.


Maybe they know conventional cars and trucks, but they sure are clueless about hybrids such as the Prius. Noone on the PriusChat discussion forum can get mpg numbers anywhere near as low as what CR reports. It's like their preferred driving style is alternating between flooring it and standing on the brakes, and driving 80mph whenever possible.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Scooby Doo said:


> It's why nobody uses MPEG-2 anymore, except OTA who are stuck with it


All of my channels on Charter Spectrum are MPEG-2.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Scooby Doo said:


> It's why nobody uses MPEG-2 anymore, except OTA who are stuck with it


All my cable channels are MPEG-2. But sadly the bit rates of the local broadcast stations have dropped from 18Mbps to around 11Mbps over the last two years. Most of my basic cable channels are over 13Mbps.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> Well sure, any codec will produce gorgeous HD at 1080i60 19.3mbps. The point is H264 will produce the same quality at half the bit rate. Not just me saying that by the way, it's the results of the subjective video quality assessments. It's why nobody uses MPEG-2 anymore, except OTA who are stuck with it


Sure, H.264 is far more efficient, but it's all about the implementation, not just the codec. My point is that there's nothing inherently wrong with MPEG-2 iff you give it adequate bitrate.



CharlesH said:


> Maybe they know conventional cars and trucks, but they sure are clueless about hybrids such as the Prius. Noone on the PriusChat discussion forum can get mpg numbers anywhere near as low as what CR reports. It's like their preferred driving style is alternating between flooring it and standing on the brakes, and driving 80mph whenever possible.


Good call. I guess having batteries and a computer controlling the drive-train is a bit too techie for CR!  Lol that sounds like a good approximation for how my dad drives.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> All of my channels on Charter Spectrum are MPEG-2.


Yes OK, cable operators with legacy equipment not supporting advanced codecs still have to use MPEG2. But all the new boxes support advanced codecs and they are all on a trajectory to switch codecs when they can. The streaming guys do not have legacy issues and none use MPEG2


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Sure, H.264 is far more efficient, but it's all about the implementation, not just the codec. My point is that there's nothing inherently wrong with MPEG-2 iff you give it adequate bitrate.


When I said MPEG2 is bad, what I meant is it is inefficient compared to more advanced codecs. Efficiency is the metric for measuring codec quality. Obviously, any codec or no codec at all can produce a quality picture at sufficient bandwidth.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> When I said MPEG2 is bad, what I meant is it is inefficient compared to more advanced codecs. Efficiency is the metric for measuring codec quality. Obviously, any codec or no codec at all can produce a quality picture at sufficient bandwidth.


That's true. It's bad if you measure by efficiency, but not bad in terms of overall usage and VQ, if implemented properly. The holy grail of live HDTV remains the ever elusive 19.3mbps MPEG-2 broadcast- although several major urban markets are darn close with 17-18mbps main channels with only a single subchannel.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> I read an article about it earlier today that said Amazon told them that they planned to allow USB hard drive attachment in the future to expand storage. We'll see.
> .............


AFTVnews.com confirms that Amazon will be adding this "soon after release":
Amazon Fire TV Recast will support External USB Storage after launch


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It's bad if you measure by efficiency


That's like saying "I'm only old if you measure by age". How else would you propose to measure the quality of a ccodec?



Bigg said:


> The holy grail of live HDTV remains the ever elusive 19.3mbps MPEG-2 broadcast


Why? 4k H264 would blow it away


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Scooby Doo said:


> Why? 4k H264 would blow it away


19.3mbps MPEG-2 is the best we can get under today's broadcast standards. We can do better with other codecs from source to receiver, but it doesn't help us as long as the transmission is coming in as MPEG-2. Any compression on top of that can only degrade it further.

ATSC 3/HEVC is a better choice, but it isn't clear when that actually will start to roll out for real. We're probably stuck with MPEG2 for a good five years yet. Best we can do is leave it encoded as it is until it hits a display.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

OrangeCrush said:


> 19.3mbps MPEG-2 is the best we can get under today's broadcast standards.


No, 19.3mbps MPEG-2 is the best ATSC can do at the moment. Other broadcast standards used by cable, satellite, and overseas terrestrial broadcasters support H264/H265 and already offer much higher video quality than 19.3mbps MPEG-2


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Scooby Doo said:


> No, 19.3mbps MPEG-2 is the best ATSC can do at the moment. Other broadcast standards used by cable, satellite, and overseas terrestrial broadcasters support H264/H265 and already offer much higher video quality than 19.3mbps MPEG-2


Fair point, but the Amazon box is only getting the ATSC MPEG2 streams off the antenna, so that's it's best possible source as far as we know.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> That's like saying "I'm only old if you measure by age". How else would you propose to measure the quality of a ccodec?


I'm looking at the picture quality coming out, not what codec is being used. With modern encoders, even 12mbps MPEG-2 looks gorgeous, but 19.3mbps, or something very close to it, is still the holy grail for broadcast TV.



> Why? 4k H264 would blow it away


We don't have 4k broadcasting via OTA today.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> We don't have 4k broadcasting via OTA today.


Quite so. We don't have it but we want it. It's almost like...the holy grail?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> Quite so. We don't have it but we want it. It's almost like...the holy grail?


Sure. But back to my original claim, 19.3mbps MPEG-2 is the holy grail *of HDTV*.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Anywhere does it say the Recast is Not ATSC 3.0 ?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

CharlesH said:


> Maybe they know conventional cars and trucks, but they sure are clueless about hybrids such as the Prius. Noone on the PriusChat discussion forum can get mpg numbers anywhere near as low as what CR reports. It's like their preferred driving style is alternating between flooring it and standing on the brakes, and driving 80mph whenever possible.


Every car I've owned, I get better mileage than CR states. And, of course, better than the EPA ratings. Which CR May use. I'm not sure.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Sure. But back to my original claim, 19.3mbps MPEG-2 is the holy grail *of HDTV*.


I don't think there is any disagreement between us, just a different understanding of terms. For you "holy grail" means "best", whereas for me it means "something elusive that you don't yet have but might find at the end of a quest". For you, HDTV means ATSC 1.0/2.0 whereas for me it means "any video standard that offers a significantly better PQ than SDTV." Please feel free to correct me if I am misrepresenting you. All your statements are correct by your terminology, all mine are correct by my terminology.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jth tv said:


> Anywhere does it say the Recast is Not ATSC 3.0 ?


I don't think many ATSC 3.0 tuners are out at this point? I would assume it doesn't have ASTC 3.0 unless it says so, maybe they are planning a cheap USB dongle upgrade?


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

jth tv said:


> Anywhere does it say the Recast is Not ATSC 3.0 ?


It probably isn't ATSC 3.0 compatible, but whether it could ever be upgraded (either via software or hardware add on) is an open question. Safest assumption is that it's not and never will be, but ATSC 3 isn't going to supplant ATSC 1 for at least 5 years and maybe never.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

The limit of two simultaneous streams makes this device a nonstarter for me. That would cause constant conflict in our house.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Scooby Doo said:


> No, 19.3mbps MPEG-2 is the best ATSC can do at the moment. Other broadcast standards used by cable, satellite, and overseas terrestrial broadcasters support H264/H265 and already offer much higher video quality than 19.3mbps MPEG-2


The current ATSC format supports H.264. It was added to the ATSC spec in 2008.
But it is not typically used by broadcasters. Since alot of earlier hardware is unable to decode it.
Although there a broadcaster in the DC/Baltimore area that is using H.264 on one of their subchannels. Channel 45-4.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

There are no consumer products available yet in the US with 3.0 tuners. Maybe we'll see some next year, although some are predicting not until 2020. Can't see the current Recast being upgradeable to 3.0, although Amazon will perhaps put out a new version with 3.0 tuners eventually.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

CharlesH said:


> Maybe they know conventional cars and trucks, but they sure are clueless about hybrids such as the Prius. Noone on the PriusChat discussion forum can get mpg numbers anywhere near as low as what CR reports. It's like their preferred driving style is alternating between flooring it and standing on the brakes, and driving 80mph whenever possible.


 I've always found the car mags more useful than CR, Road and Track and Car and Driver can be pretty merciless. They run fairly good mixed usage tests. CR is good for appliances and washing machines, either they work or they don't.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Apologies for being "off-topic"  but:

Amazon is considering adding automatic commercial-skip for the Recast:
Amazon is working on commercial skipping and content discovery for the Fire TV Recast
The Variety article linked in that AFTVnews report is also very interesting.

A comment directed toward those videophiles debating (ad nauseum) how many pixels can dance on the head of an encoding:
Clearly the Recast is not targeted to your desires. Rather they are targeting a huge mass market that wants convenience and content and is satisfied with decent mediocre video quality. Get over it!
I think they have a winner.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> A comment directed toward those videophiles debating (ad nauseum) how many pixels can dance on the head of an encoding:
> Clearly the Recast is not targeted to your desires. Rather they are targeting a huge mass market that wants convenience and content and is satisfied with decent mediocre video quality. Get over it!
> I think they have a winner.


That's a valid assessment of the target market for this thing. However, how much is it to ask that Amazon offer the option of streaming in MPEG-2? All the hardware supports it, it's just a matter of a setting in the software to allow for it. MPEG-4 1080p60 should also be an option for people who want to go that direction.

I'm not sure this is going to be massively popular, but it's a great ecosystem play for Amazon. It's clear with Echo devices and stuff like this that they are in it for the long haul, and for the entire ecosystem.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I'm not sure this is going to be massively popular


I agree for the domestic market. Overseas the potential is huge because OTA is generally much easier to receive and H264 channels are already transmitting.
Would require a DVB-T tuner, though it's very possible Recast already includes this since DVB-T/ATSC tuner ICs have been available for some time.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Apologies for being "off-topic"  but:
> 
> Amazon is considering adding automatic commercial-skip for the Recast:
> Amazon is working on commercial skipping and content discovery for the Fire TV Recast
> The Variety article linked in that AFTVnews report is also very interesting.


Getting into TiVo grounds . . . .


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> I agree for the domestic market. Overseas the potential is huge because OTA is generally much easier to receive and H264 channels are already transmitting.
> Would require a DVB-T tuner, though it's very possible Recast already includes this since DVB-T/ATSC tuner ICs have been available for some time.


Yeah, I'm not familiar with the content overseas, but content will drive it. The US networks are falling apart, with lousy shows, ratings that are dropping like a rock, and the rise of streaming. For me, it's all about PBS. After Big Bang Theory ends, it's basically SNL and a whole bunch of PBS shows that I use my TiVo for.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, I'm not familiar with the content overseas, but content will drive it.


It varies of course by country, but in general the penetration of pay TV (cable and satellite) in only about 55%; one way of restating this is "cord-cutters" are already 45% of the market, though of course most of them were never pay TV customers and so never had a cord to cut. The main content that keeps people on the pay TV platforms is, like the US, sports. Amazon is spending $8bn on original content this year which I'm sure will help


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> It varies of course by country, but in general the penetration of pay TV (cable and satellite) in only about 55%; one way of restating this is "cord-cutters" are already 45% of the market, though of course most of them were never pay TV customers and so never had a cord to cut. The main content that keeps people on the pay TV platforms is, like the US, sports. Amazon is spending $8bn on original content this year which I'm sure will help


Ok, in that case, Amazon may do better when they make a version for those markets. On the other hand, they may face a lot more competition there, since they have a more established OTA market, versus here, where there aren't very many OTA DVR options.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, I'm not familiar with the content overseas, but content will drive it. The US networks are falling apart, with lousy shows, ratings that are dropping like a rock, and the rise of streaming. For me, it's all about PBS. After Big Bang Theory ends, it's basically SNL and a whole bunch of PBS shows that I use my TiVo for.


The ads are on Broadcast TV are subsidizing the true cost of a number of streaming services, most of of Hulu partners make no profit with the service, they make money with their networks. The day is coming when we'll be paying costs for streaming more in line to what the content actually costs. Imagine HBO prices on multiple services, it will happen.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> The ads are on Broadcast TV are subsidizing the true cost of a number of streaming services, most of of Hulu partners make no profit with the service, they make money with their networks. The day is coming when we'll be paying costs for streaming more in line to what the content actually costs. Imagine HBO prices on multiple services, it will happen.


We're kind of already there with Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc. What's great is that they actually have to have great content, since you can cancel at anytime, forcing them to compete. No more 400 channels of garbage and nothing to watch.


----------



## Rob75 (Nov 24, 2017)

This is not a WiFi only device, has an ethernet port. There are better spec details available now.
https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Recast-...538328240&sr=8-3&keywords=fire+tv+recast&th=1


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> We're kind of already there with Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc. What's great is that they actually have to have great content, since you can cancel at anytime, forcing them to compete. No more 400 channels of garbage and nothing to watch.


Guess you don't actually have Netflix. Lots and lots of garbage.


----------



## Rob75 (Nov 24, 2017)

TonyD79 said:


> Guess you don't actually have Netflix. Lots and lots of garbage.


I disagree, it's all relative to taste. Kids and Millennials love Netflix. Compare what you get for your monthly cost. Netflix is the clear winner in value.
$11.99 for Netflix - Multiple device streams, unlimited guide information, and constant updated new content.
$12.50 for Tivo - Guide data, and you get to use your device.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

People seem to continually confuse what a TiVo box with subscription is: it's not a content producer and provider, it's a glorious content access device.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Guess you don't actually have Netflix. Lots and lots of garbage.


 it's all my kids watch


----------



## Rob75 (Nov 24, 2017)

Mikeguy said:


> People seem to continually confuse what a TiVo box with subscription is: it's not a content producer and provider, it's a glorious content access device.


I understand the differences. Roku, Fire TV, etc. are also access devices. Don't get me wrong, we have multiple Tivos and they work great. However IMO the "pay to use" model for hardware is going to die a slow death as more options present themselves. Case in point is the original title of this thread. The way I see it Amazon is 1 or 2 generations of hardware away.


----------



## Rob75 (Nov 24, 2017)

Scooby Doo said:


> it's all my kids watch


Mine too, and YouTube. They could care less about live or recorded TV.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Scooby Doo said:


> it's all my kids watch


The point? People watch all kinds of stuff. Still a lot of wasteland.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Guess you don't actually have Netflix. Lots and lots of garbage.


And lots and lots of great content. Netflix has content that appeals to just about everyone. So with over one thousand new hours of content each year it is impossible for it to all be the best quality.

I know my Netflix list now is always above one hundred titles. There is always something I want to watch and I keep adding more. and I will never be able to come close to watching everything I want on Netflix.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> And lots and lots of great content. Netflix has content that appeals to just about everyone. So with over one thousand new hours of content each year it is impossible for it to all be the best quality.
> 
> I know my Netflix list now is always above one hundred titles. There is always something I want to watch and I keep adding more. and I will never be able to come close to watching everything I want on Netflix.


Point is that everything has lots of excess crap.

But I wouldn't say Netflix has lots of content that appeals to everyone. I barely watch anything on there anymore.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Point is that everything has lots of excess crap.
> 
> But I wouldn't say Netflix has lots of content that appeals to everyone. I barely watch anything on there anymore.


I wrote "just about everyone".


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> I'm not sure this is going to be massively popular


Time will tell but the argument that you can get Free TV for a one time investment of $400 is pretty compelling. That is less than the cost of a single All-In TiVo. Bundle a mud flap antenna, a Recast, and a pair of FTV sticks then show people installing them in a 30s tv commercial. If people don't skip the commercial, they will try Free TV.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> We're kind of already there with Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc. What's great is that they actually have to have great content, since you can cancel at anytime, forcing them to compete. No more 400 channels of garbage and nothing to watch.


Right. The Recast adds a package of really good FREE programming to the other FTV content.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Time will tell but the argument that you can get Free TV for a one time investment of $400 is pretty compelling. That is less than the cost of a single All-In TiVo. Bundle a mud flap antenna, a Recast, and a pair of FTV sticks then show people installing them in a 30s tv commercial. If people don't skip the commercial, they will try Free TV.


I think that this, and the Amazon name/ecosphere, will attract some people. At the same time, for others, easier just to open up the TiVo device packaging, plug in a couple of cables/cords, and you're set.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Rob75 said:


> This is not a WiFi only device, has an ethernet port. There are better spec details available now.
> https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Recast-Over-air-hours/dp/B074J1GPB8/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1538328240&sr=8-3&keywords=fire+tv+recast&th=1


Hmmm.... That's just a link to the product page. What specific "better spec details" do you see that weren't there when first announced? (And where are they?).


----------



## Rob75 (Nov 24, 2017)

wizwor said:


> Time will tell but the argument that you can get Free TV for a one time investment of $400 is pretty compelling. That is less than the cost of a single All-In TiVo. Bundle a mud flap antenna, a Recast, and a pair of FTV sticks then show people installing them in a 30s tv commercial. If people don't skip the commercial, they will try Free TV.


Many positives here: 
1) No monthly fees.
2) Cheaper endpoint connections with Fire Sticks/Boxes.
3) Company committed to building up to date apps for mobile devices.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Rob75 said:


> Many positives here:
> 1) No monthly fees.
> 2) Cheaper endpoint connections with Fire Sticks/Boxes.
> 3) Company committed to building up to date apps for mobile devices.


Maybe this will be positive competition for TiVo, to encourage it forward.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Mikeguy said:


> Maybe this will be positive competition for TiVo, to encourage it forward.


Does TiVo compete for OTA customers? Last week Engadget said only 15 percent of TiVo's business comes from consumer devices. If TiVo wanted these people, they would add PSIP support and lower prices, but that is another discussion.

Amazon is not going after these people either. Amazon is going after the cable/satellite crowd. Integrating OTA with OTT to replace a premium provider moves money to Amazon's OTT offerings. In August, Consumer Reports surveyed 176,000 consumers and found only 38% were 'highly satisfied' with their provider -- and 45% of respondents were on promotional pricing. Netflix is the competition.

No guarantee any of this will lead to a meaningful shift in consumption. The only truly local content coming over the air are news and the NFL and people have pretty much stopped watching those. No reason 'diginets' cannot be streamed. If you are paying a premium for high speed internet, it's not such a big deal to pay a little more for an OTT package like Sling TV.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Mikeguy said:


> Maybe this will be positive competition for TiVo, to encourage it forward.





Rob75 said:


> Many positives here:
> 1) No monthly fees.
> 2) Cheaper endpoint connections with Fire Sticks/Boxes.
> 3) Company committed to building up to date apps for mobile devices.


Another Recast advantage (if it's true) is the Gracenote program guide data.

A Recast plus 1 or 2 Fire TV Sticks ($40 ea.) competes with an OTA TiVo plus 1 or 2 TiVo Mini's ($180 ea). And the Recast is designed to work with WiFi while the mini's are designed to work with hardwired ethernet or MOCA. Now that is not to say the Recast solution is *equivalent* to the TiVo/Mini solution. The TiVo solution has superior video specs and isn't limited to two streams (if you are willing to pay for more Mini's and install the required cabling).

Much depends on how well the Recast performs, i.e., realizes what is implied by its description and specs. A specific concern is its performance across WiFi, which is poorly implemented in many homes.

It isn't clear to me *what* motivates TiVo. As a minimum you might think the cheaper endpoint solution would cause TiVo to lower the price of the Mini.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Guess you don't actually have Netflix. Lots and lots of garbage.


There's a ton of garbage, but there's also a ton of really, really good stuff on there. It's just getting a bit harder to sift through the garbage, and I find that most of the time, I have to know what I'm looking for before I open Netflix, as most of the stuff that it shows me is garbage.



Scooby Doo said:


> it's all my kids watch


That was Tony, not me.



aaronwt said:


> I know my Netflix list now is always above one hundred titles. There is always something I want to watch and I keep adding more. and I will never be able to come close to watching everything I want on Netflix.


I agree, but I still wish that they would cut all the crap out, and focus on a smaller, higher quality offering. Unfortunately, people are watching that garbage, as otherwise it wouldn't be out there. Netflix has all the metrics, literally down to the frame that people stopped watching stuff, so they can appeal to both the best and worst of people's desires for TV.



dlfl said:


> A Recast plus 1 or 2 Fire TV Sticks ($40 ea.) competes with an OTA TiVo plus 1 or 2 TiVo Mini's ($180 ea). And the Recast is designed to work with WiFi while the mini's are designed to work with hardwired ethernet or MOCA. Now that is not to say the Recast solution is *equivalent* to the TiVo/Mini solution. The TiVo solution has superior video specs and isn't limited to two streams (if you are willing to pay for more Mini's and install the required cabling).


The problem is that for some inexplicable reason, MoCA makes people's brains blow up, even though it's actually a really simple and robust system. Wi-Fi is much easier, and I think the Recast will reach a much wider audience than TiVo with Minis ever would have. It's a continuation of trying to bring everything into the Amazon ecosystem. They'll work with DISH, TiVo, or have their own OTA box. They don't care, as long as you're in the ecosystem. They're not trying to compete directly with TiVo.

EDIT: DirecTV, Verizon, and Frontier also support Alexa control.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> That was Tony, not me.


Sorry about that: something went crazy in the edit. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth or cause distress you might have children you don't know about!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> Sorry about that: something went crazy in the edit. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth or cause distress you might have children you don't know about!


Haha, it's fine, I just wanted to set the record straight there.  I get stuff messed up too with a whole bunch of tabs open and copy/pasting quotes to try and get them down to a reasonable size. The other day I had a cross-thread mix-up that I think I edited before anyone noticed.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I had thought about picking up the amazon DVR. But then I remembered about ATSC 3.0. I'm not about to buy a new OTA DVR unless I know it can handle ATSC 3.0.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

It took over a decade for the US to convert over from NTSC to ATSC 1. (mandated in 1996, pushed back three times until 2009) Waiting for ATSC 3 to take hold isn't going to take as long, but we're still a couple of years from TVs with ATSC3 tuners. (yes, you have to buy new TVs again!) And we're probably at least five years away from ATSC 3 broadcasts becoming widespread- because the transition **is not mandatory.** And the FCC has mandated keeping ATSC 1 broadcasts alive during the spectrum auction and re-pack.

Yes, ATSC 3 is coming. So is Winter. Consumers and the market are going to drive this, and they were dragged kicking and screaming into Digital in 2009.

I'm really tempted by the Fire TV Recast. I want to dump the TiVos before they completely lose resale value in the next three years. And although I already have a HD HomeRun and PLEX handling some DVR duties that the Roamios don't- the notion of a single Amazon box doing what my HDHR/PLEX/NAS setup does now is very attractive.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> It took over a decade for the US to convert over from NTSC to ATSC 1. (mandated in 1996, pushed back three times until 2009) Waiting for ATSC 3 to take hold isn't going to take as long, but we're still a couple of years from TVs with ATSC3 tuners. (yes, you have to buy new TVs again!) And we're probably at least five years away from ATSC 3 broadcasts becoming widespread- because the transition **is not mandatory.** And the FCC has mandated keeping ATSC 1 broadcasts alive during the spectrum auction and re-pack.
> 
> Yes, ATSC 3 is coming. So is Winter. Consumers and the market are going to drive this, and they were dragged kicking and screaming into Digital in 2009.
> 
> I'm really tempted by the Fire TV Recast. I want to dump the TiVos before they completely lose resale value in the next three years. And although I already have a HD HomeRun and PLEX handling some DVR duties that the Roamios don't- the notion of a single Amazon box doing what my HDHR/PLEX/NAS setup does now is very attractive.


Keeping the ATSC 1.0 alive during the repack will suck. because they will be stuffing most local broadcasters into one frequency. So they might not even be HD. Or if they are HD will be a very low bitrate.

And no need to buy a new TV unless someone is into watching live TV. The last time I depended on a Tv tuner was in the 1980's.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> It took over a decade for the US to convert over from NTSC to ATSC 1. (mandated in 1996, pushed back three times until 2009) Waiting for ATSC 3 to take hold isn't going to take as long, but we're still a couple of years from TVs with ATSC3 tuners. (yes, you have to buy new TVs again!) And we're probably at least five years away from ATSC 3 broadcasts becoming widespread- because the transition **is not mandatory.** And the FCC has mandated keeping ATSC 1 broadcasts alive during the spectrum auction and re-pack.


But as soon as channels switch to 3.0, their 1.0 broadcasts will likely be shared with other channels and more heavily compressed, so you can't just keep the same experience you had with 1.0 before. As it is, some are already channel sharing, so if they share further, they are going to have to drop to 480p or triple up on 720p, which will look like total crap. Meanwhile, 3.0 should be better, as they can do 1080i or 1080p via HEVC at low bitrates and it will still look really good.



> Yes, ATSC 3 is coming. So is Winter. Consumers and the market are going to drive this, and they were dragged kicking and screaming into Digital in 2009.


Large broadcasters are going to have to perceive some sort of value (an explosion of subchannels maybe?) in 3.0, as consumers aren't demanding it, and the government is no mandating it. If there is a business model for 3.0, it's not 4k, maybe 1080p HDR, maybe, but mostly in a ton of HD subchannels showing old re-runs/syndicated stuff with tons of commercials and they can grind out some profit on that model.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> I had thought about picking up the amazon DVR. But then I remembered about ATSC 3.0. I'm not about to buy a new OTA DVR unless I know it can handle ATSC 3.0.





aaronwt said:


> Keeping the ATSC 1.0 alive during the repack will suck. because they will be stuffing most local broadcasters into one frequency. So they might not even be HD. Or if they are HD will be a very low bitrate.


Hard to predict what the future of OTA TV in the US is going to look like in a few years. Will ATSC 3.0 make things better or worse? I've gone from being excited about 3.0 to lukewarm. I don't think we know yet if 3.0 will allow for unfettered local DVR recording and playback like 1.0 does, at least as long as 1.0 simulcasts exist. (I'm sure someone will chime in with legal precedents but precedents are sometimes overturned.) Meanwhile, as you say, the advent of 3.0 will mean a bandwidth crunch for 1.0 stations, which must continue broadcasting for another five years. The latest generation of 1.0 encoders are reportedly pretty great but it's still hard to think that there won't be *some* amount of HD picture quality degradation and/or loss of subchannels on 1.0 stations. Meanwhile, don't expect many (or any?) actual 4K broadcasts on 3.0 stations until 1.0 goes away because there just won't be enough bandwidth; 1080p HDR will be the showcase format instead.

Then there are broader questions about the viability of the broadcast network TV business model. The network owners themselves (Disney, Comcast, CBS) are all positioning themselves to be able to shift away from the 20th-century model of the national network + local affiliates with their direct-to-consumer streaming or cable operations. Also, imagine that, come 2022, when the current NFL broadcast contracts expire, they get picked up not by CBS, Fox, NBC and ABC/ESPN but by Amazon, Google and/or other streamers. Meanwhile, primetime ratings for network series keeps trending down as eyeballs drift elsewhere. Will there be anything much worth watching on OTA TV five years from now?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> And no need to buy a new TV unless someone is into watching live TV. The last time I depended on a Tv tuner was in the 1980's.


Exactly. A new DVR or TV tuner will take care of tuning 3.0, just we are all using our TiVos, not our TVs to tune 1.0.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> Hard to predict what the future of OTA TV in the US is going to look like in a few years. Will ATSC 3.0 make things better or worse? I've gone from being excited about 3.0 to lukewarm. I don't think we know yet if 3.0 will allow for unfettered local DVR recording and playback like 1.0 does, at least as long as 1.0 simulcasts exist. (I'm sure someone will chime in with legal precedents but precedents are sometimes overturned.) Meanwhile, as you say, the advent of 3.0 will mean a bandwidth crunch for 1.0 stations, which must continue broadcasting for another five years. The latest generation of 1.0 encoders are reportedly pretty great but it's still hard to think that there won't be *some* amount of HD picture quality degradation and/or loss of subchannels on 1.0 stations. Meanwhile, don't expect many (or any?) actual 4K broadcasts on 3.0 stations until 1.0 goes away because there just won't be enough bandwidth; 1080p HDR will be the showcase format instead.
> 
> Then there are broader questions about the viability of the broadcast network TV business model. The network owners themselves (Disney, Comcast, CBS) are all positioning themselves to be able to shift away from the 20th-century model of the national network + local affiliates with their direct-to-consumer streaming or cable operations. Also, imagine that, come 2022, when the current NFL broadcast contracts expire, they get picked up not by CBS, Fox, NBC and ABC/ESPN but by Amazon, Google and/or other streamers. Meanwhile, primetime ratings for network series keeps trending down as eyeballs drift elsewhere. Will there be anything much worth watching on OTA TV five years from now?


OTA is already turning into the wasteland they accuse cable of being, a few primary stations in HD then the endless sea of SD diginets with recycled programs and horrid picture quality. ATSC 3.0 isn't going to change the programing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Hard to predict what the future of OTA TV in the US is going to look like in a few years. Will ATSC 3.0 make things better or worse? I've gone from being excited about 3.0 to lukewarm. I don't think we know yet if 3.0 will allow for unfettered local DVR recording and playback like 1.0 does, at least as long as 1.0 simulcasts exist.


I didn't even think of that, but if they don't allow unfettered DVR access, then I'm done with OTA, I'll pay PBS for Passport, and that's it. PBS is unlikely to put draconian restrictions on their broadcasters, however, due to the nature of what they do.



> The latest generation of 1.0 encoders are reportedly pretty great but it's still hard to think that there won't be *some* amount of HD picture quality degradation and/or loss of subchannels on 1.0 stations. Meanwhile, don't expect many (or any?) actual 4K broadcasts on 3.0 stations until 1.0 goes away because there just won't be enough bandwidth; 1080p HDR will be the showcase format instead.


We've already seen channels doubling up in the repack, so what happens to them is unknown as of yet. The channels that have doubled up have absolutely lost quality, as they've gone from something like 12mbps for their main channel to 8mbps per HD and 1mbps per SD. 3.0 should be a lot better, as they'll have something like 25-30mbps to work with per transmitter, and great quality HD can be done in as little as 3mbps with HEVC, which is 4x as efficient as MPEG-2. I think we'll see a whole bunch of HD subchannels crop up, as there is no financial incentive to invest in 4k production for the networks.



> Then there are broader questions about the viability of the broadcast network TV business model. The network owners themselves (Disney, Comcast, CBS) are all positioning themselves to be able to shift away from the 20th-century model of the national network + local affiliates with their direct-to-consumer streaming or cable operations. Also, imagine that, come 2022, when the current NFL broadcast contracts expire, they get picked up not by CBS, Fox, NBC and ABC/ESPN but by Amazon, Google and/or other streamers. Meanwhile, primetime ratings for network series keeps trending down as eyeballs drift elsewhere. Will there be anything much worth watching on OTA TV five years from now?


There won't be much worth watching. A lot of the content has already gone. The primetime ratings have dropped like a rock, and the shows this season have gotten awful reviews. They used to do a multi-hour New Years Eve show, for example, now it's like 30 minutes long and crap. Lots of other special event broadcasts are being shortened or disappearing. However, with a huge back catalog of re-runs and syndicated content, and local news/weather, OTA can live on for a long time in one form or another.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> OTA is already turning into the wasteland they accuse cable of being, a few primary stations in HD then the endless sea of SD diginets with recycled programs and horrid picture quality. ATSC 3.0 isn't going to change the programing.


Exactly. Most of the shows people are talking about are on Netflix, with a few each on Amazon, Hulu, HBO, and Showtime. The future of TV is bright and clear.


----------



## phughes200 (Jul 24, 2014)

I am looking at the Amazon device for my daughter. While I love my TiVO, the $500 price for OTA is steep. What I like about the Recast is that it has all the features that I actually use on my TiVo plus one major feature that TiVo doesn't have. It can add third party apps such as Sling which TiVo cannot. It means that she can elimate having to switch sources.

I agree that this product is not for the TV lovers that want infinate storage, the ability to transfer prograams to another device and who want robust serach features. But for the average viewer who want to record their favorate show and then delete it, this appears to be a nice solution. Not sexy but does what you need.

Having side that, we need to see real reviews to see how well Amazon executed.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

phughes200 said:


> I am looking at the Amazon device for my daughter. While I love my TiVO, the $500 price for OTA is steep. What I like about the Recast is that it has all the features that I actually use on my TiVo plus one major feature that TiVo doesn't have. It can add third party apps such as Sling which TiVo cannot. It means that she can elimate having to switch sources.
> 
> I agree that this product is not for the TV lovers that want infinate storage, the ability to transfer prograams to another device and who want robust serach features. But for the average viewer who want to record their favorate show and then delete it, this appears to be a nice solution. Not sexy but does what you need.
> 
> Having side that, we need to see real reviews to see how well Amazon executed.


I'm sure you likely know about it, but I was on Craigslist earlier today and was pleasantly surprised by the nice prices on used Roamio boxes with Lifetime--was seeing units around $300. (Bolts were considerably more.) If I was considering today, I definitely would think about it. Also, at least as of last week, Roamio OTA reburbs at the online TiVo store Outlet ($350--when I purchased a Roamio OTA refurb earlier, it seemed to be new and never used).


----------



## phughes200 (Jul 24, 2014)

I have occassionally checked Craigslist but haven't seen much in my area. Have seen a few on EBay selling for about what TiVo is selling a refurbished one for. I don't really have problems with used but mosy will probally be 3 years old most of the ones listed have the small 500g drive.

I am on the fence. Do I buy a used Roamio for $350 or wait for the reviews on a new Recast for 249-279. There are things that I like about both units.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

phughes200 said:


> I have occassionally checked Craigslist but haven't seen much in my area. Have seen a few on EBay selling for about what TiVo is selling a refurbished one for. I don't really have problems with used but mosy will probally be 3 years old most of the ones listed have the small 500g drive.


The Roamio OTA's drive is dead simple to upgrade. I upgraded mine to 3TB just because I could. If you only need OTA on one TV, I'd consider a Series 3, although they're pricey for how old they are. I guess people want them for OTA, as even the TCD 648's that don't work on most cable systems anymore are going for about $150.


----------



## kkoh (Mar 31, 2017)

Bundle today with a cheapie indoor antenna and a 4k FireStick: *on AMAZON*


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Wish the 4-tuner/1TB Recast had a bundle with 4K FireStick. Don't need the antenna.


----------



## kkoh (Mar 31, 2017)

Well if we're talking wish giving genies.. I wish there was a decent box with a tuner built in that I could throw LibreELEC onto and be done with all of it


----------



## TKnight206 (Oct 20, 2016)

phughes200 said:


> I have occassionally checked Craigslist but haven't seen much in my area. Have seen a few on EBay selling for about what TiVo is selling a refurbished one for. I don't really have problems with used but mosy will probally be 3 years old most of the ones listed have the small 500g drive.
> 
> I am on the fence. Do I buy a used Roamio for $350 or wait for the reviews on a new Recast for 249-279. There are things that I like about both units.


I remember buying a TiVo-renewed Roamio (500gb, the kind that does cable and antenna) for $300 back in August 2015. I think one rep even threw in a $50 credit after 30 days passed, effectively making it $250. Yes, lifetime included. Plus taxes of course. I miss those kind of deals that TiVo had. My cable provider spiking DVR rental prices pushed me over the edge that summer.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

TKnight206 said:


> I remember buying a TiVo-renewed Roamio (500gb, the kind that does cable and antenna) for $300 back in August 2015. I think one rep even threw in a $50 credit after 30 days passed, effectively making it $250. Yes, lifetime included. Plus taxes of course. I miss those kind of deals that TiVo had. My cable provider spiking DVR rental prices pushed me over the edge that summer.


I got that same deal at the same time (but without the extra $50 credit). AFAIK it's the best deal TiVo ever offered. But there are lots of things I miss, such as the time when the F-bomb had a powerful meaning and was reserved for special occasions, such as when you smashed your thumb with the hammer, rather than being sprinkled into every other sentence almost as often as "and", "the", etc. Guess we just have to get used to the "new normal", right?


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

phughes200 said:


> I have occassionally checked Craigslist but haven't seen much in my area. Have seen a few on EBay selling for about what TiVo is selling a refurbished one for. I don't really have problems with used but mosy will probally be 3 years old most of the ones listed have the small 500g drive.
> 
> I am on the fence. Do I buy a used Roamio for $350 or wait for the reviews on a new Recast for 249-279. There are things that I like about both units.


Buy the Roamio!


----------



## DBV1 (Jul 13, 2018)

aaronwt said:


> I had thought about picking up the amazon DVR. But then I remembered about ATSC 3.0. I'm not about to buy a new OTA DVR unless I know it can handle ATSC 3.0.


That is hillarious, if all people did in life was wait for the next great techical thing, no one would ever get anything. 3.0 is a ways away from being the standard and if one need a dvr for the next 3 years, I would definitely not wait. You can make the above statement about anything technology wise.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DBV1 said:


> That is hillarious, if all people did in life was wait for the next great techical thing, no one would ever get anything. 3.0 is a ways away from being the standard and if one need a dvr for the next 3 years, I would definitely not wait. You can make the above statement about anything technology wise.


3.0 is a major technical jump that is going to be around for a long time. It's not like TVs that have incremental improvements every year.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> 3.0 is a major technical jump that is going to be around for a long time. It's not like TVs that have incremental improvements every year.


It's going to be around for a long time, but it is not here and it's not imminent. ATSC 1.0 is going to be around for a long time and it IS here. ATSC 1.0 will coexist with ATSC 3.0. 3.0 service will simply be streamed from a router to apps on FTVs, Rokus, ATVs, and maybe even TiVos.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

I'm still not convinced that ATSC 3.0 is *ever* going to launch. Certainly not worth deferring purchase decisions


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I tend to think that Sinclair (the largest broadcast station owner group in the country) has already invested too much time and money into the development of and preparation for ATSC 3.0 to ultimately bail on deployment of it. Sinclair developed and owns several of the patents behind 3.0 and they have undoubtedly been its biggest cheerleader. Now, that said, 3.0 may turn out to be a flop, but I do believe it's really coming.

And my belief in that was bolstered by the recent joint commitment from several additional TV station groups -- including, critically IMO, stations directly owned by NBC and Fox -- to deploy ATSC 3.0 to a majority of Americans by the end of 2020. Obviously, if 3.0 is going to really get off the ground, it needs support from the broadcast networks too. Looks like Fox and NBC are in.

Station Groups Endorse ATSC 3.0 for 2020 Market Debut - TvTechnology

So, best we can tell at this point, we're probably looking at a wait of about two more years before 3.0 is available in a meaningful way. Earlier this year, I had been predicting that it would roll out to a decent chunk of Americans in 2019 before going nationwide in 2020. Looks like that won't happen now, although I think it's still possible that some scattered stations, particularly those owned by Sinclair, will start 3.0 broadcasts next year. We'll see.

At any rate, I don't expect that we're going to see next-gen 3.0 features in broadcast network content -- such as 1080p HDR or 4K video, interactive content, embedded video-on-demand menus, etc. -- until fall 2020 at the earliest, based on the article linked above. And that stuff will probably be limited at first too. So it may be the 2021-22 broadcast TV season before those features are widespread on NBC, Fox, ABC and CBS (assuming the latter two networks decide to support ATSC 3.0).

For someone who is in the market for an OTA DVR now, I'd suggest going ahead and buying. And then, if you need to be on the bleeding edge, you can upgrade to a 3.0-compatible OTA DVR 2-3 years from now. If the DVR you buy now comes with lifetime service (such as the Fire TV Recast), it'll probably still fetch at least some money on eBay a couple years from now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> It's going to be around for a long time, but it is not here and it's not imminent. ATSC 1.0 is going to be around for a long time and it IS here. ATSC 1.0 will coexist with ATSC 3.0. 3.0 service will simply be streamed from a router to apps on FTVs, Rokus, ATVs, and maybe even TiVos.


The issue is that as soon as 3.0 launches in a market, 1.0 stations start to channel share even more, and the video quality will go down even more than it already has, whereas with 3.0, you'll likely get even better video quality than 1.0 ever had, due to the ability to send many channels at 1080p resolution on a single transmitter using HEVC.



Scooby Doo said:


> I'm still not convinced that ATSC 3.0 is *ever* going to launch. Certainly not worth deferring purchase decisions


I think it's worth being cautious with 1.0 devices right now, as they could be largely obsolete within a few years if 3.0 ever takes off. I'm not sure how well 3.0 will do, but several of the large broadcasters seem to be behind it. What I don't understand is the financial motivations, as to me, the stations should financially want people on pay TV, and just broadcast in 1.0 to the existing people receiving it that way. Improving OTA and furthering cord cutting cuts their retrans fee revenue, but apparently they see something in the efficiency/cost of 3.0, or in the ability to broadcast to mobile.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Scooby Doo said:


> I'm still not convinced that ATSC 3.0 is *ever* going to launch. Certainly not worth deferring purchase decisions


And outside of South Korea, nobody's even making ATSC 3 hardware. Stations must broadcast under ATSC 1.0 for at least four more years and the FCC isn't pushing a mandatory transition. I'm not convinced that will ever happen either, but even if it does start getting some real momentum and interest from broadcasters, I don't see ATSC 1.0 going away for at least ten more years.

It's all far too tenuous to worry about. ATSC 1.0 will be sticking around for a while longer yet.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

OrangeCrush said:


> It's all far too tenuous to worry about. ATSC 1.0 will be sticking around for a while longer yet.


Yes, ATSC 1.0 broadcasts will continue on for several more years. So, the risk right now in buying a 1.0 DVR isn't that it will become useless any time soon but rather that, in a couple years from now, it will be "outdated" and unable to support the latest-and-greatest in OTA TV. (There's also the risk that the picture quality of 1.0 broadcasts will be degraded somewhat once that station begins simulcasting in 3.0.)

Some people don't care about those risks. Some do. If you DO care about those risks, then maybe you choose to stick with your existing Roamio OTA for the next few years (as long as it's working OK) rather than spend money now on a new ATSC 1.0 DVR.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

DBV1 said:


> That is hillarious, if all people did in life was wait for the next great techical thing, no one would ever get anything. 3.0 is a ways away from being the standard and if one need a dvr for the next 3 years, I would definitely not wait. You can make the above statement about anything technology wise.


I'm not waiting. I've been receiving and recording HD broadcasts from OTA for over seventeen years now. Since Summer 2001. And I plan to continue when ATSC 3.0 is available.

I currently have two Bolts and one Roamio in use that are capable of OTA reception. And if I wanted to, I could dust off my two lifetime S3 boxes, and one lifetime TiVo Premiere for OTA recordings.

If the Amazon DVR was under $100 then I might do it just to play around with it. But It's over $200. ATSC 3.0 broadcasts will be here soon enough. And in most cities, once they start, ATSC 1.0 broadcasts will really look like crap. Since they plan to stuff as many local stations into one frequency, to accommodate people still on legacy ATSC 1.0. Which would make the picture quality even worse than today.

Plus OTA is also a backup for me. I mainly use cable, so OTA is not a priority. Not like it was in the early 2000's, when OTA was the only way I could record and time shift HD programs.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> And in most cities, once they start, ATSC 1.0 broadcasts will really look like crap. Since they plan to stuff as many local stations into one frequency, to accommodate people still on legacy ATSC 1.0. Which would make the picture quality even worse than today.


^This.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ^This.


Which is why I remain skeptical. What's the marketing message going to be? "We trashed your old HD signal so now you need to go buy a new TV to watch our new HD signal." I'm sure that will get people flocking to Costco in droves.
And what's the business case? "We are finally gaining viewers because of cord-cutters and companies like Amazon and TiVO so let's drive them all away again with a pointless backwards-incompatible technology change." Really?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Scooby Doo said:


> Which is why I remain skeptical. What's the marketing message going to be? "We trashed your old HD signal so now you need to go buy a new TV to watch our new HD signal." I'm sure that will get people flocking to Costco in droves.
> And what's the business case? "We are finally gaining viewers because of cord-cutters and companies like Amazon and TiVO so let's drive them all away again with a pointless backwards-incompatible technology change." Really?


Your average viewer has no clue about the quality of the HD video. Heck and even less know anything about ATSC 3.0. Your average viewer won't really notice or care if the quality is lower. They only care that they can receive the channels.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Scooby Doo said:


> Which is why I remain skeptical. What's the marketing message going to be? "We trashed your old HD signal so now you need to go buy a new TV to watch our new HD signal." I'm sure that will get people flocking to Costco in droves.
> And what's the business case? "We are finally gaining viewers because of cord-cutters and companies like Amazon and TiVO so let's drive them all away again with a pointless backwards-incompatible technology change." Really?


When people's PQ gets really really bad and they are told that it's because of a new technology that uses different tuners do you think they will just live with the horribly crappy picture? I'm betting most will upgrade their TVs. TVs are a pretty cheap bargain in our modern age.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

One of the big hurdles with ATSC 3 is that the FCC isn't mandating the switch and there aren't going to be any coupons for free tuner boxes like they did with the digital transition. It's going to end up like the transition to HD Radio. Glacial. And it's only going to really take off when people start getting hardware that has it built in already. Hardly anybody went out an bought an HD Radio on purpose. For most of the installed base, it just came with a new car.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

OrangeCrush said:


> One of the big hurdles with ATSC 3 is that the FCC isn't mandating the switch and there aren't going to be any coupons for free tuner boxes like they did with the digital transition. It's going to end up like the transition to HD Radio. Glacial. And it's only going to really take off when people start getting hardware that has it built in already. Hardly anybody went out an bought an HD Radio on purpose. For most of the installed base, it just came with a new car.


So if their picture degrades from what they have now you don't think that will drive acceptance? Personally I think that when the PQ starts looking like a muddy smeary mess folks will just buy a new TV or some add-on box with new tuners. I doubt that stations will continue with the same PQ they have now unless they are somehow forced to do it. They might compress and manipulate to save space until it looks horrible - force people to move to the newer tech.


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> When people's PQ gets really really bad and they are told that it's because of a new technology that uses different tuners do you think they will just live with the horribly crappy picture?


Yes.



mschnebly said:


> I'm betting most will upgrade their TVs. TVs are a pretty cheap bargain in our modern age.


They are a bargain, that's part of the reason why they won't come with ATSC3 tuners. Would cut into the tiny profit margin. If the FCC mandates ATSC3, they will just drop the tuner completely.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Luke M said:


> Yes.
> 
> They are a bargain, that's part of the reason why they won't come with ATSC3 tuners. Would cut into the tiny profit margin. If the FCC mandates ATSC3, they will just drop the tuner completely.


What good is OTA without a tuner?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

The tuner is only the first half. Any ATSC 3 device would also need h/w decoding of h.265/HEVC as well- and that part is more expensive.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> The tuner is only the first half. Any ATSC 3 device would also need h/w decoding of h.265/HEVC as well- and that part is more expensive.


That is no big deal. The majority of streaming devices I have decode HEVC now. Most cost me below $70.
Heck, the new Roku Premiere is only $40. And it decodes HEVC.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

It is a big deal for device, set top box, game console and TV manufacturers when they're paying a per-unit-royalty. (the initial cost of MPEG-2 was $2.50/unit with no cap) And HEVC/H.265 is further complicated by TWO patent pools that need to be paid.

They would rather not pay any license at all. Which is part of the reason why AOM's AV1 codec came about.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Saturn_V said:


> It is a big deal for device, set top box, game console and TV manufacturers when they're paying a per-unit-royalty. (the initial cost of MPEG-2 was $2.50/unit with no cap) And HEVC/H.265 is further complicated by TWO patent pools that need to be paid.
> 
> They would rather not pay any license at all. Which is part of the reason why AOM's AV1 codec came about.


The group that administers HEVC reduced the per-device hardware royalty fee for lower cost devices.

HEVC Advance relaxes royalty fees on non-physical content distribution - Streamroot blog

I may be wrong but I don't think there's anything in terms of current model smart TVs, gaming consoles, or streaming boxes/sticks that DOESN'T support HEVC. I think even the cheapest Roku Express, which tops out at 1080p, can decode HEVC. Amazon, for instance, will stream HD content in HEVC rather than H.264 if your device supports it.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Oh I get that HEVC has good penetration right now- 4K TVs with Smart features will support it.

But innovation in video compression shouldn't be so exorbitant. I'm sure the codecs 5 or 10 years from now will be more efficient, and take less storage, better quality, blah, blah, blah... And manufacturers we'll still be paying out the wazoo for them with the old business model, and passing that cost to us.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> But innovation in video compression shouldn't be so exorbitant.


Seriously, if you want to moan about costs of intellectual property then pick on someone really evil like Qualcomm. The costs of video compression are very small on a per unit basis and have virtually no impact on the retail price of a DVR.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> Which is why I remain skeptical. What's the marketing message going to be? "We trashed your old HD signal so now you need to go buy a new TV to watch our new HD signal." I'm sure that will get people flocking to Costco in droves.
> And what's the business case? "We are finally gaining viewers because of cord-cutters and companies like Amazon and TiVO so let's drive them all away again with a pointless backwards-incompatible technology change." Really?


It's a hard sell from that perspective, but, yeah, basically, "we trashed your signal now get a TiVo that doesn't exist yet to get the new signal".



aaronwt said:


> Your average viewer has no clue about the quality of the HD video. Heck and even less know anything about ATSC 3.0. Your average viewer won't really notice or care if the quality is lower. They only care that they can receive the channels.


Most people are too stupid to tell the difference between atrocious 720p and good 720p or 1080i, Comcast has proven this in testing and the real world. But maybe people will notice if they go to SD quality?



aaronwt said:


> That is no big deal. The majority of streaming devices I have decode HEVC now. Most cost me below $70.
> Heck, the new Roku Premiere is only $40. And it decodes HEVC.


Yup. You have to do HEVC to do Netflix 4k, and it reduces bandwidth consumption with 1080p content as well.



Scooby Doo said:


> Seriously, if you want to moan about costs of intellectual property then pick on someone really evil like Qualcomm. The costs of video compression are very small on a per unit basis and have virtually no impact on the retail price of a DVR.


And I'll buy a phone specifically because it has a Qualcomm radio and SoC, because they are just better at working on weak signals than anything else, and they invested the billions of dollars into the technology. I'm usually anti-IP, as I think it distorts a lot of things that should be FLOSS, but in Qualcomm's case, they made it, and nobody else bothered to do the work that they have done to make great phone radios.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Saturn_V said:


> Oh I get that HEVC has good penetration right now- 4K TVs with Smart features will support it.
> 
> But innovation in video compression shouldn't be so exorbitant. I'm sure the codecs 5 or 10 years from now will be more efficient, and take less storage, better quality, blah, blah, blah... And manufacturers we'll still be paying out the wazoo for them with the old business model, and passing that cost to us.


I actually think AV1 will become dominant next decade. I predict the next Apple TV will roll out in 2020 with hardware support for the codec. It's supported by pretty much all the major players.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> Your average viewer has no clue about the quality of the HD video. Heck and even less know anything about ATSC 3.0. Your average viewer won't really notice or care if the quality is lower. They only care that they can receive the channels.


True if people cared about quality they be hollering about the SD subchannels with OTA reception, some look very bad.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

OrangeCrush said:


> One of the big hurdles with ATSC 3 is that the FCC isn't mandating the switch and there aren't going to be any coupons for free tuner boxes like they did with the digital transition.


You are correct that digital television would never have happened absent government mandates. There was no demand for better television. ATSC 1.0 almost destroyed broadcast television. Adoption of ATSC 3.0 will be market driven and the pace of acceptance will indeed be glacial. ATSC 3.0 mostly benefits industry and there is even less demand for its benefits than there was for ATSC 1.0. The niche that strongly desires the benefits of ATSC 3.0 will likely satisfy their needs with OTT.

That said, whether next gen television comes over the air, via cell phone carrier, or through a cable, boxes like the Tablo and Amazon DVRs. The set top box will be an app on a Roku or a smart television. Mass appeal will be for nudity and profanity not 4k quality. The whole thing will be heavily subsidized by industry.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> I actually think AV1 will become dominant next decade. I predict the next Apple TV will roll out in 2020 with hardware support for the codec. It's supported by pretty much all the major players.


I think you are right on the mark here. Alliance for Open Media Releases Royalty-Free AV1 1.0 Codec Spec


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Getting back on topic, Amazon has made 12 free live news channels available on Fire TV devices:
Pluto TV brings 12 Free News Channels to the Amazon Fire TV's Live Channel Interface
This is on topic because these channels are integrated into the same grid-style program guide that will be used for the Recast and into which Playstation Vue channels are already integrated.

Even without the Recast, and without a PS Vue subscription, you can see what the grid interface looks like by just installing the Pluto app. The news channels come via Pluto but the user interface is a Fire TV one, not requiring you to open the Pluto App. You can manage which news channels are shown in the guide and the order shown.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

This sounds identical to Google's Live Channels app on Android TV. My Android TV has all my OTA channels as well as several other channel sources including ALL Pluto channels and about 3,000 other channels integrated into a single guide.

Good to see Amazon at least taking a step in the right direction.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

I can't watch most 480i that is broadcast.

But for me, how a show is recorded and in particular how it is lighted has much more of a impact than its resolution. For DVD (480p) quality and above, I don't see much of a difference, at least compared to the difference between different shows or even between different scenes in a show, at least with shows produced in the past several years. And 99% of the time, I'm more interested in the story than its picture resolution.

Unless something dramatic happens, I won't be upgrading.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dlfl said:


> Getting back on topic, Amazon has made 12 free live news channels available on Fire TV devices:
> Pluto TV brings 12 Free News Channels to the Amazon Fire TV's Live Channel Interface
> This is on topic because these channels are integrated into the same grid-style program guide that will be used for the Recast and into which Playstation Vue channels are already integrated.


This is cool and shows that Amazon understands that the next phase in offering successful video consumption devices is in building UIs that conveniently and logically integrate content from the increasing number of sources that make up the TV landscape: various paid and free streaming services, cable TV, OTA TV, local and cloud DVRs. What Amazon Fire TV (as well as Apple TV and Roku) are doing is essentially building replacements for the traditional cable/satellite box. We may not see it quite yet, but those devices are developing into platforms that will compete with Comcast X1, Altice One, etc. App-based streaming isn't going anywhere. In fact, we're only going to see more high-profile streaming services emerge in the next few years. And if channel-based TV (cable/broadcast) eventually disappears, it's going to take a long time for that to happen. So the name of the game now is how to blend those various sources together in a way that users understand and like.



mdavej said:


> This sounds identical to Google's Live Channels app on Android TV. My Android TV has all my OTA channels as well as several other channel sources including ALL Pluto channels and about 3,000 other channels integrated into a single guide.
> 
> Good to see Amazon at least taking a step in the right direction.


Yes, Fire TV's live TV UI is definitely taking a page from Google's Live Channels. It's ironic how Google did so much to develop and popularize Android on phones but then let Amazon sweep in and take its open source core to create a TV streaming platform that has absolutely crushed Google's own attempt with Android TV. Yes, Android TV is making inroads globally as a turnkey platform for MSOs to use for their own TV STBs but it's completely floundering on the retail front. Google's approach -- the same as they had done with phones -- was to create software that device makers could license to use on their own devices. But that was the wrong approach for the TV streamer market. I used to hope that Google would wise up and, with their newfound focus on first-party hardware, create and aggressively market a "Pixel Player" that would run Android TV. But at this point, it may be too late.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> This is cool and shows that Amazon understands that the next phase in offering successful video consumption devices is in building UIs that conveniently and logically integrate content from the increasing number of sources that make up the TV landscape: various paid and free streaming services, cable TV, OTA TV, local and cloud DVRs.


This is a very good point. Apple has been doing this with their poorly-named Apple TV app that runs on the Apple TV hardware. However, it's all sort of academic until Netflix jumps into the game, and integrates their content into these UIs, as they are the 800-pound gorilla in the room, and as long as they are competing to be the first place users go to watch streaming video content, then it's still going to be fractured and siloed. The other player that is huge here is Google with YouTube. YouTube has been on a meteoric rise in the past year or two. While it's been around for a long time on PCs and mobile, in the past few years there has been more medium- and long-form content put on YouTube, and the growth of TV usage of YouTube has followed with a spectacular rise. YouTube also would need to be integrated into a UI with the Watch Later list, and some better queue and list management tools than they currently have on TV in order to make something like this successful.

I would say that a successful TV UI need to integrate the following OTT SVOD and OTT VOD (YouTube) services at a bare minimum:

1. Netflix
2. Amazon
3. Hulu
4. HBO
5. Showtime
6. YouTube
7. An OTA DVR app.

The OTA DVR app could be Recast, Tablo, or a future App from TiVo that provides deep integration into the streaming device and turns the Bolt OTA into a headless server.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> This is a very good point. Apple has been doing this with their poorly-named Apple TV app that runs on the Apple TV hardware. However, it's all sort of academic until Netflix jumps into the game, and integrates their content into these UIs, as they are the 800-pound gorilla in the room, and as long as they are competing to be the first place users go to watch streaming video content, then it's still going to be fractured and siloed. The other player that is huge here is Google with YouTube. YouTube has been on a meteoric rise in the past year or two. While it's been around for a long time on PCs and mobile, in the past few years there has been more medium- and long-form content put on YouTube, and the growth of TV usage of YouTube has followed with a spectacular rise. YouTube also would need to be integrated into a UI with the Watch Later list, and some better queue and list management tools than they currently have on TV in order to make something like this successful.
> 
> I would say that a successful TV UI need to integrate the following OTT SVOD and OTT VOD (YouTube) services at a bare minimum:
> 
> ...


I agree that integrating Netflix is very important, although I still find a lot of value in Apple's TV app even without Netflix there. And we do see Netflix getting integrated on some MVPDs' own platforms, such as X1. Still waiting for that to happen on retail device UIs, though.

As for YouTube, I don't really see too much value in it being integrated into a unified UI and watchlist, unless you're talking about those YouTube Premium original series that Google is creating. Other than that, YouTube is just a huge hodge-podge of stuff, and generally not series that folks watch sequentially (which is what you really want a watchlist for). That said, it would be nice to have YouTube search results included in a system-wide content search. Don't get me wrong, I like YouTube a lot, I just think it's so different from everything else that it's just best accessed through its own UI inside that app.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I agree that integrating Netflix is very important, although I still find a lot of value in Apple's TV app even without Netflix there. And we do see Netflix getting integrated on some MVPDs' own platforms, such as X1. Still waiting for that to happen on retail device UIs, though.


True, but not having Netflix basically splits everything in half- the Netflix world, and the non-Netflix world, and they are both too big to ignore.



> As for YouTube, I don't really see too much value in it being integrated into a unified UI and watchlist, unless you're talking about those YouTube Premium original series that Google is creating. Other than that, YouTube is just a huge hodge-podge of stuff, and generally not series that folks watch sequentially (which is what you really want a watchlist for). That said, it would be nice to have YouTube search results included in a system-wide content search. Don't get me wrong, I like YouTube a lot, I just think it's so different from everything else that it's just best accessed through its own UI inside that app.


I have some content that I'm subscribed to on YouTube. There would need to be a filtering mechanism, but there are a handful of channels that I would like to see pop up on a Now Playing List type of setup alongside new episodes or shows that I've marked to watch on Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Hulu, Showtime, and via OTA. The YouTube content is shorter, but nonetheless totally worthy of watching on a TV, and it's some of the most interesting and informational medium-form content out there right now.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> True, but not having Netflix basically splits everything in half- the Netflix world, and the non-Netflix world, and they are both too big to ignore.


Word is that Apple is going to roll out a revamped TV app in the next few months, when it begins offering Amazon Channels-style subscriptions (and also becomes home to Apple's forthcoming slate of original series). I'm really hoping at that time that Netflix decides to play nice and integrate with it. We'll see. It would be a big deal.



Bigg said:


> I have some content that I'm subscribed to on YouTube. There would need to be a filtering mechanism, but there are a handful of channels that I would like to see pop up on a Now Playing List type of setup alongside new episodes or shows that I've marked to watch on Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Hulu, Showtime, and via OTA. The YouTube content is shorter, but nonetheless totally worthy of watching on a TV, and it's some of the most interesting and informational medium-form content out there right now.


Yeah, I'm subscribed to several things on YouTube too, but it's all short(ish)-form stuff and I just wouldn't want that stuff popping up into the same watchlist as regular TV series and movies. Even on Android TV, does Google place that kind of content from YouTube inside the universal "Watch Next" queue at the top of the home screen?


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

ATSC 3.0 has the capability to offer significantly more channels per broadcast station than ATSC 1.0. I think many people would be willing to pay a one time fee for either a converter or a new TV to receive additional programming. For me, one of the reasons I bought an HD TV in 2005 was for the extra subchannels that I could receive.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> ATSC 3.0 has the capability to offer significantly more channels per broadcast station than ATSC 1.0. I think many people would be willing to pay a one time fee for either a converter or a new TV to receive additional programming. For me, one of the reasons I bought an HD TV in 2005 was for the extra subchannels that I could receive.


 But what will that programing be, once you get past the major networks and PBS, there is no new programming. I don't see that economic model changing. I won't pay to watch recycled programming. Streaming has changed the game.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Word is that Apple is going to roll out a revamped TV app in the next few months, when it begins offering Amazon Channels-style subscriptions (and also becomes home to Apple's forthcoming slate of original series). I'm really hoping at that time that Netflix decides to play nice and integrate with it. We'll see. It would be a big deal.


Let's hope so. Netflix seems to think that they have the power to be that one place, but I think they risk getting forgotten about if everything else is in one place, and Netflix is in another.



> Yeah, I'm subscribed to several things on YouTube too, but it's all short(ish)-form stuff and I just wouldn't want that stuff popping up into the same watchlist as regular TV series and movies. Even on Android TV, does Google place that kind of content from YouTube inside the universal "Watch Next" queue at the top of the home screen?


YouTube would have to have a separate category of subscriptions and a separate Watch Later playlist to display on the TV so that it doesn't clutter it up too much. However, there are several channels, like Wendover Productions, for example, that I would want to show up alongside my Netflix, HBO, Amazon, OTA, etc, content, and I think that sort of format is going to grow a lot in the coming years, as it's able to satisfy all sorts of little niches.



tenthplanet said:


> But what will that programing be, once you get past the major networks and PBS, there is no new programming. I don't see that economic model changing. I won't pay to watch recycled programming. Streaming has changed the game.


Yeah, the subchannels today are almost all garbage. It remains to be seen what will happen when a single transmitter can house 8-10 HD channels, and if that spurs the development of better subchannels, but I remain skeptical.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tenthplanet said:


> But what will that programing be, once you get past the major networks and PBS, there is no new programming. I don't see that economic model changing. I won't pay to watch recycled programming. Streaming has changed the game.


Yes, good point. Perhaps we'll see more niche non-English-language subchannels but I really do question how much additional mainstream content exists out there that can be monetized by ads alone on free OTA TV. Here's what I posted just yesterday on this topic over on the ATSC 3.0 thread at AVS Forum:

So, what do you think broadcasters will do with their 3.0 spectrum? Assuming it's actually used for TV (rather than datacasting, etc.), they'll have to put *something* other than their flagship network on there.* Do you think we'll see brand new diginets (perhaps in HD) pop up? What would they air? There's only so much of that old TV content available out there and it would seem like most of it is already being mined by existing diginets like Me-TV, Antenna TV, Cozi, etc. The more desirable not-as-old content, I would think, is either syndicated to the more-watched .1 flagship subchannels (like Seinfeld reruns on 30.1 here or Goldbergs reruns on 58.1) and/or is licensed to pay platforms, whether that's cable or OTT streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, etc.

I guess what I'm getting at is whether OTA viewers can really expect anything different, in terms of content, once ATSC 3.0 launches or whether it will just be more of the same as we have now but with better picture quality on the major networks, plus a few new tech features like an on-screen guide and easy access to selected on-demand content (e.g. watch the most recent local newscast whenever you want).

*On second though: I guess it's possible we'll see broadcasters partner together to just operate a single ATSC 3.0 tower in a given market. Given this article, it's apparently possible for a single 6 MHz ATSC 3.0 station to carry 1080p HDR channels for ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, the CW, and Telemundo.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I think we will see an explosion of diginets. Low-quality syndicated content could be used to create more diginets, and I think more of them will be broadcast in 720p if a significant portion of their source content is available in HD, although I don't know how much of the really old stuff that is on film has been re-scanned in HD, and how much of it is from the videotape era. The diginets may even begin producing their own original content, but it's not exactly going to be high quality stuff, it will be a low-budget grind.

In addition to diginets, I think many smaller markets will see one or two ATSC 3.0 transmitters carrying all of the stations for that market in order to keep costs down, with diginets in SD. For markets with channels that are spread out in different areas, we could see simulcasts of various channels on each other's transmitters. For larger markets, there may be some channels in other languages specific to that market that could generate some ad revenue. In larger and mid-sized markets, I think we could start to see dedicated news and weather channels that have constant local news and weather, or we could even see the launch of something like CBS News in HD nationwide for national news, as they are already doing that via streaming. There have been some other new news channels come on in the past few years, so it's possible that we could see something totally new launch as an OTA diginet for news, as the news genre provides a lot of opportunities for advertisements to reach a broad audience, and it doesn't cost a whole lot to produce. There are a LOT of possibilities.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I think we will see an explosion of diginets. Low-quality syndicated content could be used to create more diginets, and I think more of them will be broadcast in 720p if a significant portion of their source content is available in HD, although I don't know how much of the really old stuff that is on film has been re-scanned in HD, and how much of it is from the videotape era. The diginets may even begin producing their own original content, but it's not exactly going to be high quality stuff, it will be a low-budget grind.


Eh, I'm skeptical. Folks with ATSC 3.0 tuners will be a fraction of the fraction of Americans who watch OTA TV. Maybe we'll see a few 720p national diginets debuting on 3.0 stations. But if we do, I imagine they'll also be available where more eyeballs are: online. We already see some diginets like Comet put their live streams online through various free OTT platforms. I think we'll see more and more of that in the future.

Remember that 3.0 tuners will actually be hybrid 3.0/1.0 tuners, so viewers should be able to watch both types of channels incorporated into the same new UI/channel guide. I don't see too many stations broadcasting the same diginet on both their 1.0 and their 3.0 tower. I think they'll use their 3.0 spectrum mainly for a higher-quality version of their flagship network (e.g. NBC, Fox, etc.) and then bitpool and monetize the leftover spectrum through non-free-TV business ventures.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

I'm pretty sure you can forget about pay TV on ATSC 3.0. It has been tried on digital OTA platforms in several countries without success. Which just leaves advertising funded channels; but they can already get carriage on cable or OTT and access more eyeballs for less cost. So I just don't see how ATSC 3.0 can use "more choice" as a go to market strategy. Which just leaves better picture quality.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Scooby Doo said:


> So I just don't see how ATSC 3.0 can use "more choice" as a go to market strategy. Which just leaves better picture quality.


I can't see the broadcast networks ever spending $10M/episode to make that PQ worth watching. BBT gets $10M, but no one's watching that show for the cinematography or vfx. (or humor)

The PQ is definitely a boon for sports- I guess. You'd think the sportsfans would be screaming for it after a decade of Football, Baseball and NASCAR in 720p on FOX. But they're not.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Eh, I'm skeptical. Folks with ATSC 3.0 tuners will be a fraction of the fraction of Americans who watch OTA TV. Maybe we'll see a few 720p national diginets debuting on 3.0 stations. But if we do, I imagine they'll also be available where more eyeballs are: online. We already see some diginets like Comet put their live streams online through various free OTT platforms. I think we'll see more and more of that in the future.


That's possible. But what else are they going to use all that bandwidth for?



> Remember that 3.0 tuners will actually be hybrid 3.0/1.0 tuners, so viewers should be able to watch both types of channels incorporated into the same new UI/channel guide. I don't see too many stations broadcasting the same diginet on both their 1.0 and their 3.0 tower. I think they'll use their 3.0 spectrum mainly for a higher-quality version of their flagship network (e.g. NBC, Fox, etc.) and then bitpool and monetize the leftover spectrum through non-free-TV business ventures.


OTA pay TV doesn't have a business model behind it. If they try it, it will be a flop. What's left for all that bandwidth? Just combining a whole bunch of stations onto one transmitter?



Saturn_V said:


> I can't see the broadcast networks ever spending $10M/episode to make that PQ worth watching. BBT gets $10M, but no one's watching that show for the cinematography or vfx. (or humor)


There are a few good shows out there that would benefit from improved VQ. The master network feeds are massively higher bitrate than what gets broadcast, so they certainly have the high quality sources to work with.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Looks like Amazon has done a price reduction and bundle for their Fire TV Recast.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H3MKT3G/?tag=aftvn-20


This bundle includes a Fire TV Stick 4K, Fire TV Recast, and a 35-mile HD antenna-everything you need to watch over-the-air live and recorded TV, plus streaming content, from one home screen.
With Fire TV Recast, you can watch and record live sports, local news, late night shows, and other can't miss TV from channels available through an HD antenna like ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS, and The CW with no monthly fees.
Record up to 2 live TV shows at once, with enough storage for up to 75 hours of HD programming.
Fire TV Stick 4K is the most powerful 4K streaming media stick with a new Wi-Fi antenna design optimized for 4K Ultra HD streaming. Enjoy brilliant picture quality with access to 4K Ultra HD, HDR, HDR10+, and Dolby Vision.
Choose from 500,000 movies and TV episodes. Watch favorites from Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, YouTube, STARZ, SHOWTIME, CBS All Access, and others.
Use the included all-new Alexa Voice Remote to turn on compatible TVs, search for shows, manage recordings, and help with other requests. Just press and say things like "Alexa, open Channel Guide" or "Alexa, tune to NBC."


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> OTA pay TV doesn't have a business model behind it. If they try it, it will be a flop. What's left for all that bandwidth? Just combining a whole bunch of stations onto one transmitter?


Yeah, I agree that conditional access pay TV via OTA will probably be a flop, although I think some stations may try it. The other thing that I think we'll see is stations using their 3.0 bandwidth for non-TV uses -- various forms of datacasting. Could be for IoT networks (including self-driving cars). I've seen talk about using the bandwidth as last-mile infrastructure supplements that would integrate into CDNs for delivering OTT video. Seems like Sinclair once mentioned the possibility (not that they were actually planning it) of creating a nationwide music service that would work a lot like satellite radio. Sinclair seems to be most enthusiastic station group when it comes to non-TV use of bandwidth. We'll see.

At any rate, I think that, at least for the first couple of years after 3.0 debuts in your TV market, it's reasonable to expect that a lot of OTA TV channels will still be exclusively on 1.0. Yes, any station that begins 3.0 broadcasting will simulcast their flagship channel on 3.0 and we may see a few new or existing diginets broadcasting on 3.0 too but there will probably still be a number of diginets (and quite possibly major nets like CBS and ABC) broadcasting exclusively on 1.0 because that's where the great majority of viewers will still be for quite awhile. It's going to be messy.

What I really want to know about 3.0 is how the UI will work. Because a lot of the future of TV has to do with who controls the UI and therefore how easily discoverable various content sources are. (That's particularly important for free, ad-supported content, I think.) Look at what Fire TV is doing with their live TV program grid guide. It's integrating not only OTA TV but also various streaming channels from Pluto TV (which just today announced that they're adding OTA diginet Buzzr as a live streaming channel) as well as live streaming cable and premium channels via PS Vue and Amazon Channels. Will ATSC 3.0 tuners allow their channels to be integrated into and accessed by third-party UIs like that on a range of streaming devices?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I agree that conditional access pay TV via OTA will probably be a flop, although I think some stations may try it. The other thing that I think we'll see is stations using their 3.0 bandwidth for non-TV uses -- various forms of datacasting. Could be for IoT networks (including self-driving cars). I've seen talk about using the bandwidth as last-mile infrastructure supplements that would integrate into CDNs for delivering OTT video. Seems like Sinclair once mentioned the possibility (not that they were actually planning it) of creating a nationwide music service that would work a lot like satellite radio. Sinclair seems to be most enthusiastic station group when it comes to non-TV use of bandwidth. We'll see.


Datacasting? That sounds like a hideously inefficient use for OTA spectrum for something that could be much more cheaply and easily done with fiber lines. However, the radio idea is actually really interesting if car manufacturers would integrate the receivers into their cars. That being said, with modern audio codecs, you're looking at a few mbps for the whole service, so that doesn't really take that much from the video stat mux. I wonder if they would offer a handful of ad-supported stations for free, and have more with a subscription, or would it be entirely a subscription service?



> At any rate, I think that, at least for the first couple of years after 3.0 debuts in your TV market, it's reasonable to expect that a lot of OTA TV channels will still be exclusively on 1.0. Yes, any station that begins 3.0 broadcasting will simulcast their flagship channel on 3.0 and we may see a few new or existing diginets broadcasting on 3.0 too but there will probably still be a number of diginets (and quite possibly major nets like CBS and ABC) broadcasting exclusively on 1.0 because that's where the great majority of viewers will still be for quite awhile. It's going to be messy.


Yes, it's going to be messy in a lot of ways. I wonder if some markets will just end up with one or two ATSC 3.0 transmitters that have all or most of the 1.0 channels on them, and everything ends up getting simulcast without a whole lot of new content? I'm not sure what the end game or incentive to go into 3.0 in that type of a system is though.



> What I really want to know about 3.0 is how the UI will work. Because a lot of the future of TV has to do with who controls the UI and therefore how easily discoverable various content sources are. (That's particularly important for free, ad-supported content, I think.) Look at what Fire TV is doing with their live TV program grid guide. It's integrating not only OTA TV but also various streaming channels from Pluto TV (which just today announced that they're adding OTA diginet Buzzr as a live streaming channel) as well as live streaming cable and premium channels via PS Vue and Amazon Channels. Will ATSC 3.0 tuners allow their channels to be integrated into and accessed by third-party UIs like that on a range of streaming devices?


They should, just like 1.0 and NTSC. It's just a stream of data, so I don't see why that would be tied to any particular UI.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

tenthplanet said:


> But what will that programing be, once you get past the major networks and PBS, there is no new programming. I don't see that economic model changing. I won't pay to watch recycled programming. Streaming has changed the game.


But it's a one time fee, not a recurring payment and you would wind up with ATSC 3.0 eventually when you buy a new TV. I would watch recycled programming if I haven't seen it before. It's new to me.

I think many free streaming services and live streams on youtube would show up on ATSC 3.0 where they can bombard the viewers with commercials. Sprint customers already get the low-end version of HULU for free, so I could see HULU coming to ATSC 3.0.

Also, ATSC 3.0 is supposed to allow mobile device streaming and the data will not count against the data plan and there is a large segment of the population that only use mobile devices to watch video. I think you would then be able to cast the video to a TV, so existing technology could be used.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> ATSC 3.0 is supposed to allow mobile device streaming


If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Yes, it's going to be messy in a lot of ways. I wonder if some markets will just end up with one or two ATSC 3.0 transmitters that have all or most of the 1.0 channels on them, and everything ends up getting simulcast without a whole lot of new content? I'm not sure what the end game or incentive to go into 3.0 in that type of a system is though.


Well, that would be the lowest risk way to start out (which is why I think it's likely), with just one or two towers in a market converted from 1.0 to 3.0. Those one or two 3.0 towers would air enhanced versions of all the participating flagship networks, with only a little bandwidth leftover for whatever other uses. Meanwhile, the HD and SD channels that got bumped off those one or two towers would get redistributed among the remaining 1.0 towers in that market (among the stations participating in the partnership).

I think some folks are fearful that we'll see the opposite scenario, with only a couple of towers left broadcasting in 1.0, with all those stations getting crammed onto those towers and everything downgraded to SD. But that just won't happen until most OTA viewers have 3.0-capable tuners AND -- _very importantly_ -- until carriage arrangements gets worked out for 3.0 stations on MVPDs. Keep in mind that, so far, the FCC is not requiring cable to carry 3.0 channels. (And, honestly, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around how 3.0 will get integrated into MVPD delivery systems, STBs, UIs, etc. while keeping 3.0 interactivity and targeted ad platforms intact.) Remember that less than 20% of the US public actually watches OTA TV with an antenna. The vast majority of Americans access those stations through MVPDs or (increasingly) vMVPDs. So it's hard to see how ATSC 3.0 succeeds if it's only serving actual OTA viewers. (Meanwhile, how interested is Comcast in trying to integrate the UIs, program guide and targeted ad platform of ATSC 3.0 into their own X1? I guess we'll see...)



Bigg said:


> They should, just like 1.0 and NTSC. It's just a stream of data, so I don't see why that would be tied to any particular UI.


Well, yes and no. Yes, 3.0 is a data stream but it's not just video and audio. It also includes guide data, interactive elements, and the ability to hook into the internet for targeted ads and on-demand video. Broadcasters can even publish their own app-like HTML5-based UIs -- with the TV screen essentially displaying a webpage with full-screen or partial-screen video, text/graphical overlays, etc. It's all just IP.

My guess is that 3.0 OTA TV will basically be contained with its own app, whether that's on a smart TV, streaming device, or phone. Perhaps the app will be backed by a consortium of the major broadcasters; it seems that may be part of what the Pearl group is doing right now with their 3.0 test market out in Phoenix. Hopefully the live streams (i.e. channels) within that app can be freely deep-linked to from other UIs such as the native home-screen UIs of Apple TV, Fire TV, etc.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, that would be the lowest risk way to start out (which is why I think it's likely), with just one or two towers in a market converted from 1.0 to 3.0.


I'm hoping that's how they will go, and that will basically drive the direction of 3.0 for the next several years, as most of the 3.0 bandwidth will be tied up with having multiple 1080p and 720p channels on a single transmitter.



> AND -- _very importantly_ -- until carriage arrangements gets worked out for 3.0 stations on MVPDs. Keep in mind that, so far, the FCC is not requiring cable to carry 3.0 channels. (And, honestly, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around how 3.0 will get integrated into MVPD delivery systems, STBs, UIs, etc. while keeping 3.0 interactivity and targeted ad platforms intact.)


I've heard this point before. However, it makes no sense. Many MVPDs today receive QAM muxes via fiber, so even if the 1.0 transmitter goes down, the station could keep the encoders to feed half a QAM channel on cable. Further, many cable companies are moving towards re-encoding to MPEG-4, in which case they could use the 3.0 feed to generate an MPEG-4 feed, and if they still use MPEG-2, they could encode a nice MPEG-2 feed off of the 3.0 feed. So this whole concept makes no sense. Cable companies don't use 1.0 as it is, they re-modulate to QAM, and whatever the source is, it's just a video source, they can re-encode to whatever. They don't carry a 1.0 feed nor a 3.0 feed per se, they carry a video feed, and they use a source for that. The same is true for DirecTV, DISH, IPTV, and increasingly, vMVPDs. As for ads, cable companies have their own ad injection systems anyway, so that's irrelevant.



> Well, yes and no. Yes, 3.0 is a data stream but it's not just video and audio. It also includes guide data, interactive elements, and the ability to hook into the internet for targeted ads and on-demand video.


But it has to work as just a dumb video stream as well, as not all TVs are hooked up to the internet. If they were just going to stream everything, they never would have needed 3.0 in the first place.



> My guess is that 3.0 OTA TV will basically be contained with its own app, whether that's on a smart TV, streaming device, or phone.


It could be for streaming boxes and DVRs and such, but it also has to just work on a TV. Channel 7 needs to be channel 7 or 7.1 or 7.10 or whatever.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> So it's hard to see how ATSC 3.0 succeeds if it's only serving actual OTA viewers. (Meanwhile, how interested is Comcast in trying to integrate the UIs, program guide and targeted ad platform of ATSC 3.0 into their own X1? I guess we'll see...)


Maybe an X1 app that has a guide for ATSC 3.0 instead of including them on the main guide like the Netflix app?

Edit: Oops, I see you made that point.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I've heard this point before. However, it makes no sense. Many MVPDs today receive QAM muxes via fiber, so even if the 1.0 transmitter goes down, the station could keep the encoders to feed half a QAM channel on cable. Further, many cable companies are moving towards re-encoding to MPEG-4, in which case they could use the 3.0 feed to generate an MPEG-4 feed, and if they still use MPEG-2, they could encode a nice MPEG-2 feed off of the 3.0 feed. So this whole concept makes no sense. Cable companies don't use 1.0 as it is, they re-modulate to QAM, and whatever the source is, it's just a video source, they can re-encode to whatever. They don't carry a 1.0 feed nor a 3.0 feed per se, they carry a video feed, and they use a source for that. The same is true for DirecTV, DISH, IPTV, and increasingly, vMVPDs. As for ads, cable companies have their own ad injection systems anyway, so that's irrelevant.


You're assuming that the way things worked with ATSC 1.0 is how they will work with ATSC 3.0, which is that the stations will essentially just give MVPDs the core audio/video stream and allow them to do what they will with it. And maybe that's what will happen again. But I don't think that's at all clear yet. A guy who has worked in the broadcast TV industry for decades over on AVS Forum, who moderates the ATSC 3.0 thread, seems to believe that the economics of the whole targeted ad thing don't really work if it's limited to just the actual OTA audience. So if that can't be extended into MVPDs' distribution systems, ATSC 3.0 could be a big flop that never really gets off the ground.

Who knows. We'll see. I do think there's some non-zero chance that 3.0 just further fractures the TV landscape, never getting fully embraced by all the necessary industry players, while the major networks themselves navigate around their OTA affiliates and pursue more lucrative avenues for bringing their next-gen video to consumers. Notice that, while NBC and Fox-owned stations recently committed to roll out 3.0 in 2020, we've still heard nothing from CBS or ABC, who own direct-to-consumer services CBS All Access and Hulu.



Bigg said:


> But it has to work as just a dumb video stream as well, as not all TVs are hooked up to the internet. If they were just going to stream everything, they never would have needed 3.0 in the first place.


Yes, ATSC 3.0 broadcasts will need to work with TVs that aren't connected to the internet but, no, that still won't make them just dumb video streams. 3.0 broadcasts are IP streams that can include graphical app-like UIs, metadata, etc. So the channel guide and the graphical UI for navigating between channels, for instance, won't depend on an internet connection and may not even depend on any pre-installed software on the TV or tuner device; rather it could all be contained and "published" to the screen through the broadcast signal itself.



Bigg said:


> It could be for streaming boxes and DVRs and such, but it also has to just work on a TV. Channel 7 needs to be channel 7 or 7.1 or 7.10 or whatever.


See my comment above. All, keep in mind that on today's ATSC 1.0-capable smart TVs, the OTA tuner function is itself basically a pre-installed app. On my LG TV, "Live TV" shows up as an app icon on the bottom of the screen right alongside Netflix, Hulu, etc.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> You're assuming that the way things worked with ATSC 1.0 is how they will work with ATSC 3.0, which is that the stations will essentially just give MVPDs the core audio/video stream and allow them to do what they will with it. And maybe that's what will happen again. But I don't think that's at all clear yet. A guy who has worked in the broadcast TV industry for decades over on AVS Forum, who moderates the ATSC 3.0 thread, seems to believe that the economics of the whole targeted ad thing don't really work if it's limited to just the actual OTA audience. So if that can't be extended into MVPDs' distribution systems, ATSC 3.0 could be a big flop that never really gets off the ground.


The stations will have to give the MVPDs just an audio/video stream as they do today, and likely nothing except some technical back-end details will change. If anything, they will move to even higher bitrate MPEG-4 or HEVC feeds coming in over fiber so that Comcast and gang have a better quality source to re-encode, since the higher the quality the source, the more efficient the re-encoding process is. Comcast is not going to let someone else control their customers' UX unless they're getting the network feed for free, which will never happen unless mandated by law, since the networks are now dependent on double-dipping with ad revenue and retransmission fees.

Part of the equation here is that the future of pay tv is changing so rapidly. I just wrote this piece as part of a post about Comcast and Cox over at DSLR, and I think it's very relevant to this discussion as well. The discussion there was about cloudiziation of the DVR experience.



> Comcast is already pretty far along the cloudification of the DVR, as they are currently storing the last 60(??) hours of content in the cloud, so if you swap you box, all recent recordings are still there. That being said, they are running off a cliff, as the pay-tv market is shrinking by 3-4% a year, and they alone are hiding several million would-be cord cutters behind various bundle and bulk deals. Providers like YouTube TV, PS Vue, Sling TV, DirecTV Now, etc, are already entirely cloud-based with no local storage, and Comcast is delivering all their X1 VOD, as well as some X1-only channels via IP.
> 
> What remains to be seen is if Comcast ever gets to delivering an entirely IP-based, cloudified system to their TV subscribers before the pay tv market completely collapses. At the moment, with the pace of change in the market, they have little incentive to convert their existing channels to IP, at least the HD ones. Their over-compressed crap quality HD only takes up about 13 QAMs out of 135 QAMs on a typical 860mhz system, while the number of pay tv channels shrunk slightly over the past few years, and is going to start shrinking substantially more. Further, they already have millions of HDD-based DVRs deployed that they are charging $20/mo for, or using as bundle bait to prop up numbers for Wall Street. They are probably close to the point where they have deployed so many X1 boxes that they get as many back from people cutting the cord as they need to turn around and re-deploy, and at some point, the balance will tip farther towards more boxes coming in than going out.
> 
> Lastly, in terms of the cloud, they are already putting a lot of content in the cloud, they already have the mobile device streaming capabilities through the cloud DVR system, as well as the efficiency of IP-VOD. I think the next shoe to drop is the discontinuation of QAM VOD, which would eliminate VOD on pre-X1 boxes as well as TiVos, but would allow them to continue to function as DVRs and cable boxes. After that, I really don't think that they're going to do much for a few years, other than adding new channels to the IP-based system on X1, while reducing linear QAM bandwidth as channels go dark, and they can re-pack their MPEG-4 QAMs over time since they are all CBR encoded anyway.


Now look at that in terms of ATSC 3.0, and with a market that's shrinking by 3-4% per year, and Comcast's strategy for retaining some of those customers via their own X1 platform, you have a recipe that leaves zero room for anyone else to have control over any part of their UX.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

> Who knows. We'll see. I do think there's some non-zero chance that 3.0 just further fractures the TV landscape, never getting fully embraced by all the necessary industry players, while the major networks themselves navigate around their OTA affiliates and pursue more lucrative avenues for bringing their next-gen video to consumers. Notice that, while NBC and Fox-owned stations recently committed to roll out 3.0 in 2020, we've still heard nothing from CBS or ABC, who own direct-to-consumer services CBS All Access and Hulu.


That's a good point, as technologies and technology transitions are always messy, and that will especially be the case with ATSC, since we have so many different players with different incentives and agendas at play here. Personally, if I were running an OTA network, I would not want to do 3.0 except maybe in a few very large markets, and even then, just with a slightly higher quality 1080p simulcast of the existing streams, using partnerships to offer HD on both ATSC 1.0 and 3.0. I just don't see the economics in spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in making free OTA TV more widely available than it is today, given that their business model is so dependent on retranmission fees. If I were the networks, I would be focusing on own-brand apps, getting content on Hulu, and getting my stations into OTT vMPVD services where some of the cord-cutters will be recaptured as cord-replacers.

I see one of the few scenarios happening:

1. ATSC 3.0 is a flop. Only a handful of stations nationwide convert, and it's only used by flagship large markets, or in rural, challenging to cover markets by a few stations here and there, and most stations remain on ATSC 1.0.

2. ATSC 3.0 is widely available with a slow user transition. Lots of stations, maybe even a majority convert, with channel sharing on ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 simulcasts at slightly higher quality muxed onto few, or even a single 3.0 transmitter in each market. There might be a few new 3.0-only diginets, or diginets that move to 3.0, but the main networks remain on both.

3. A rapid conversion. There is actually some economic logic that stations might want to push people to 3.0, as some might be pushed to pay TV, and if everyone just buys new tuners to get 3.0, the stations don't have to pay for that, and they can then consolidate transmitters, with many smaller markets running one or two 3.0 transmitters to save the cost of broadcasting, with major O&O markets retaining both 1.0 and 3.0 transmitters, possibly with 1.0 at reduced quality below that of the current 2HD/4SD benchmark that the newest generation of encoders have gotten to with a small but noticeable reduction in quality.

Another interesting thing is that we are right at the beginning of the curve for increasing encoder efficiency for HEVC, even though we are pretty much at the end of MPEG-2. MPEG-2 has gotten far more efficient, and as HEVC gets more efficient, the possibilities of what can be multiplexed onto a single tower become almost limitless. Whether it's sharing a single tower for a whole market, or gazillions of diginets, foreign language content, audio content, etc, there are a LOT of possibilities. The big question is what there is a business model for, which is where I get really skeptical.

What I'm pretty sure we're NOT going to see at any scale is 4k broadcasting. There's no business model or demand for it at this point. If we see any parts of UHD show up, it will be 1080p HDR, but I'm even skeptical on that. I just don't see the business model for it. I think that we will see 1080i channels move to 1080p on 3.0, I'm not sure about 720p channels, as they have been using 720p for a long time, and never moved to the superior 1080i format. Further, there is no indication that any MVPD is ready to deliver local 4k. If live 4k takes off, it will be RSNs and national sports channels, as cable companies could handle a few 4k channels in each market, and DirecTV has the bandwidth to do a handful of national sports channels, all the major RSNs in the US, and still have a few slots left over for for their own channels, movie and documentary channels, etc. In 2019, they will have more bandwidth for 4k on Ka, since MPEG-2 is getting killed on Ku, channels with HD versions will be de-duplicated, and SD-only channels will move to MPEG-4, so a lot of HD will move from Ka to Ku, and free up quite a bit of space on Ka in addition to the 50 slots that they already have ready to go with no content on RB, and the few channels on Ka that are showing 4k content today. Add in locals that can be de-duplicated and the CONUS space that frees up, Ka space as HD channels start to go dark, and improvements in HEVC encoding technology that will allow lower bitrates, and you have a LOT of bandwidth for 4k content if anyone ever produces it.



> Yes, ATSC 3.0 broadcasts will need to work with TVs that aren't connected to the internet but, no, that still won't make them just dumb video streams. 3.0 broadcasts are IP streams that can include graphical app-like UIs, metadata, etc. So the channel guide and the graphical UI for navigating between channels, for instance, won't depend on an internet connection and may not even depend on any pre-installed software on the TV or tuner device; rather it could all be contained and "published" to the screen through the broadcast signal itself.


I see what you're saying technically, but I don't understand the business or marketing purpose of that. It doesn't seem to do above and beyond what PSIP can do via ATSC 1.0 other than make pretty graphics on the screen, which is sort of useless. Once you get into VOD and interactive stuff, why not just make a Roku/FTV/ATV/CC/AndroidTV app and stream everything?



> See my comment above. All, keep in mind that on today's ATSC 1.0-capable smart TVs, the OTA tuner function is itself basically a pre-installed app. On my LG TV, "Live TV" shows up as an app icon on the bottom of the screen right alongside Netflix, Hulu, etc.


Sure, the phone function on every smartphone is really just a built-in app. I get that. But from a UI/UX perspective, when someone punches in 7.1, the TV needs to just tune to 7.1.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

1. The case for ATSC 3.0 is not really broadcast television but adding pay tv to the broadcast spectrum. Premium channels will offer free routers which will make HBO et al available to antenna only subscribers. 
2. The box providers will share cost with tenants which will include the Networks.
3. Pretty much.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wizwor said:


> 1. The case for ATSC 3.0 is not really broadcast television but adding pay tv to the broadcast spectrum. *Premium channels will offer free routers which will make HBO et al available to antenna only subscribers.*
> 2. The box providers will share cost with tenants which will include the Networks.
> 3. Pretty much.


Now, _that _will be interesting (and potentially costly) for us lowly OTA/non-cable types.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

In the 70s my parents had a premium OTA service. Nothing new. I don't remember much about it except 1) it required a special antenna, and 2) we got rid of it after the free trial. 

I'm pretty agnostic about entertainment -- always looking for value. Unlike Bigg, I find a lot to love over the air even at lower resolutions. I no longer feel contempt for Comcast and would welcome them back into my home at the right price. I can definitely see me downsizing to a smart phone and broadcast television once I retire, but I can also see me doing other things. We live in great times.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> 1. The case for ATSC 3.0 is not really broadcast television but adding pay tv to the broadcast spectrum. Premium channels will offer free routers which will make HBO et al available to antenna only subscribers.
> 2. The box providers will share cost with tenants which will include the Networks.
> 3. Pretty much.


Why would HBO do that? They already have HBO NOW. And regular MVPDs. And vMVPDs. They just don't need to be on pay OTA. Right now, OTA is free, so it's not like someone can call in and complain if their signal sucks or something. Imagine supporting a pay service via OTA. It sounds like a nightmare in the making.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Why would HBO do that?


To make more money? About 20% of homeowners do not have high speed internet. At least some of them would pay to see boobs and hear profanity.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

If only HBO was worth it's very high monthly fee. The on!y reason I have it is because I got it for free for two years. And the few times a year I watch it, I only watch through the app. Since it has better quality than what FiOS. The same goes with Starz and Showtime. They are included in the FiOS Ultimate HD tier. But if I watch anything from them, I only watch from their apps.


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> If only HBO was worth it's very high monthly fee. The on!y reason I have it is because I got it for free for two years. And the few times a year I watch it, I only watch through the app. Since it has better quality than what FiOS. The same goes with Starz and Showtime. They are included in the FiOS Ultimate HD tier. But if I watch anything from them, I only watch from their apps.


Costs so much for so little!


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

HBO is only $5 when added to DirecTV NOW.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> To make more money? About 20% of homeowners do not have high speed internet. At least some of them would pay to see boobs and hear profanity.


A lot of those people do have pay tv, but amongst the ones who don't, why would HBO target them? If they are too cheap or too poor to have internet access, they're most certainly not going to pay $15/mo for HBO. I don't think HBO is that dumb.



aaronwt said:


> If only HBO was worth it's very high monthly fee. The on!y reason I have it is because I got it for free for two years.


John Oliver is holding them together. Silicon Valley and VICE are great, but they are only on part of the year. Their lineup is quite thin, and they've made some really dumb decisions in the past few years in terms of content. They've had a lot of flops, and then they killed The Brink, which was one of the funniest shows I've ever watched.

Movies are a tough market these days, since there are so many options competing for people's time and money.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> A lot of those people do have pay tv, but amongst the ones who don't, why would HBO target them? If they are too cheap or too poor to have internet access, they're most certainly not going to pay $15/mo for HBO. I don't think HBO is that dumb.


HBO was just an example, but it's a good one. HBO charges $5 to add its service to DTVNow. Let's assume $5 allows them to make worthwhile money. $5 is not a lot of money to add a premium channel. $60 per year for Game of Thrones et al. If I do not already have high speed internet, the cost soars to $65 per month as I have to pay for the ISP before I can get HBO. Maybe MLB puts their product on the air again? The point is that this represents an untapped market which costs nothing to exploit. It's a market that will continue to grow as the number of people foregoing high speed internet for 5G climbs.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> HBO was just an example, but it's a good one. HBO charges $5 to add its service to DTVNow. Let's assume $5 allows them to make worthwhile money. $5 is not a lot of money to add a premium channel. $60 per year for Game of Thrones et al. If I do not already have high speed internet, the cost soars to $65 per month as I have to pay for the ISP before I can get HBO. Maybe MLB puts their product on the air again? The point is that this represents an untapped market which costs nothing to exploit. It's a market that will continue to grow as the number of people foregoing high speed internet for 5G climbs.


Hmm, I think the actual future market for HBO via subscription-OTA would be folks who meet all of the following criteria:

Don't have broadband internet (as they would otherwise just subscribe to HBO Now online)
Live somewhere where they cannot get service from DirecTV satellite, Dish satellite or local cable/telco TV OR they simply don't want to subscribe to a package of basic cable channels (even though they are willing to spend ~$15/mo* on HBO)
Get good OTA reception
Have an ATSC 3.0 tuner
Are interested only in live HBO (don't care about on-demand/time-delayed viewing) OR have an OTA DVR that they could use for recording HBO
I'm sure that, come the early 2020s (when ATSC 3.0 will be available nationwide), some number of American households will still meet all those criteria but I suspect that it may simply be too few for AT&T (which owns HBO) to bother with deploying a new distribution method involving various local OTA broadcast groups across the country. We'll see.

(*While AT&T does offer HBO at a promotional $5 rate to DirecTV Now customers, they charge $15 for all other direct-to-consumer avenues and usually $15 or more for MVPD-distributed avenues.)

The last similar initiative was AirBox, which tried to sell Showtime and Starz and maybe some Spanish-language pay channels on encrypted subchannels of local ION stations. However, I'm sure it was hampered by the fact that it required the viewer to buy an AirBox-branded OTA tuner box. At any rate, AirBox was a total bust, only ever getting on the air in a few markets before going defunct about a year ago.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> HBO was just an example, but it's a good one. HBO charges $5 to add its service to DTVNow. Let's assume $5 allows them to make worthwhile money. $5 is not a lot of money to add a premium channel. $60 per year for Game of Thrones et al. If I do not already have high speed internet, the cost soars to $65 per month as I have to pay for the ISP before I can get HBO. Maybe MLB puts their product on the air again? The point is that this represents an untapped market which costs nothing to exploit. It's a market that will continue to grow as the number of people foregoing high speed internet for 5G climbs.


That's a promo through AT&T because of the AT&T-TW merger. The normal price is $15/mo. There's no untapped market there. People who are too cheap or too poor to have either internet OR pay TV aren't the subscribers who are going to pay for much of anything. 5G is home internet, so that argument makes absolutely no sense. When you have a 300mbps symmetrical Unlimited connection via Verizon 5G, you may as well get HBO NOW or MLB.tv through your streaming device.



NashGuy said:


> Hmm, I think the actual future market for HBO via subscription-OTA would be folks who meet all of the following criteria:
> 
> Don't have broadband internet (as they would otherwise just subscribe to HBO Now online)
> Live somewhere where they cannot get service from DirecTV satellite, Dish satellite or local cable/telco TV OR they simply don't want to subscribe to a package of basic cable channels (even though they are willing to spend ~$15/mo* on HBO)
> ...




Yup. It makes absolutely no sense. People with poor internet connectivity available are far more likely to have satellite TV, in which case they can go there, and those folks are unlikely to have good OTA anyway. Households with good broadband that don't subscribe to it are not going to be able and/or willing to pay $15/mo for HBO, and they are also likely to have Unlimited data plans on their phones, so they would be better reached through mobile anyway.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> There's no untapped market there. People who are too cheap or too poor to have either internet OR pay TV aren't the subscribers who are going to pay for much of anything. 5G is home internet, so that argument makes absolutely no sense. When you have a 300mbps symmetrical Unlimited connection via Verizon 5G, you may as well get HBO NOW or MLB.tv through your streaming device.


I'm that market. I am right now dividing my computer world between a home network and an outside network. I am rapidly reducing my reliance on internet connected devices. By the time I retire, I will completely/primarily rely on cell service for connectivity. I'm neither poor not cheap. My salary is six figures and am paying $40k / yr for my youngest to go to college after buying each of my sons a new car. I simply do not tent over television and the internet.



Bigg said:


> Yup. It makes absolutely no sense. People with poor internet connectivity available are far more likely to have satellite TV, in which case they can go there, and those folks are unlikely to have good OTA anyway. Households with good broadband that don't subscribe to it are not going to be able and/or willing to pay $15/mo for HBO, and they are also likely to have Unlimited data plans on their phones, so they would be better reached through mobile anyway.


This is an option I am looking at. Some of AT&T's bundles are very attractive.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I suspect that it may simply be too few for AT&T (which owns HBO) to bother with deploying a new distribution method involving various local OTA broadcast groups across the country. We'll see.


Of course -- we'll see. That is what makes this so much fun. The cost of streaming via OTA is about $0, so this is just free revenue for those who can compel people to pay.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Of course -- we'll see. That is what makes this so much fun. The cost of streaming via OTA is about $0, so this is just free revenue for those who can compel people to pay.


Oh, I'm sure that the broadcasters (Sinclair, Nexstar, Meredith, etc.) would take a cut of the revenue from HBO for distributing their channels through their towers, just as cable and satellite distributors do. Of course, cable/sat also handle billing and customer service; who knows how that might be handled with subscription OTA channels.

Also, the broadcasters themselves have to weigh the competing opportunity costs: would we make more money using a given amount of our 3.0 OTA bandwidth to distribute HBO (getting a % of each subscriber's monthly fee), or would we make more money using that bandwidth for some other purpose such as additional free ad-supported networks or datacasting.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

I think HBO is probably the least likely channel to go pay OTA since it's so much better on-demand than live. Live sports (ESPN, FS1, FS2) and news (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC) seem a bit more realistic. But I still doubt the economics work. And then there's the legacy contractual issues..


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Scooby Doo said:


> I think HBO is probably the least likely channel to go pay OTA since it's so much better on-demand than live. Live sports (ESPN, FS1, FS2) and news (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC) seem a bit more realistic. But I still doubt the economics work. And then there's the legacy contractual issues..


Then there are reception issues, if cable goes out for an extended period, a credit may be in order. Good luck getting a credit for multipath issues.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> I'm that market. I am right now dividing my computer world between a home network and an outside network. I am rapidly reducing my reliance on internet connected devices. By the time I retire, I will completely/primarily rely on cell service for connectivity. I'm neither poor not cheap. My salary is six figures and am paying $40k / yr for my youngest to go to college after buying each of my sons a new car. I simply do not tent over television and the internet.


You're clearly not a typical user, and I stand by the fact that there are virtually no people who are too cheap or too poor to pay for internet access or pay tv, but would pay $15/mo for HBO.


----------



## eherberg (Feb 17, 2011)

He may not be that unusual. The number of people using cell phone for internet access with no home broadband is currently on the rise. PewInternet research has 20% of adults using their phone as primary internet. If you break it down by age - the younger you go, the more that number rises. 28% of 18-29 year olds, 24% of 30-49 year olds. The research indicates it isn't economics that drives this. They're not using mobile data because they can't afford home broadband -- they just don't see a need for it.

I know that when I was staying in an apartment temporarily while my place out deep in the woods in Boonie-Land was being worked on, the 3 other people in the 4-plex all used mobile as their primary. I was the only person with wired broadband. They all had Netflix and such. But just like the young prefer their media consumption via phone/tablet, etc - an increasing number are just using their mobile data instead of getting home broadband.

Personally, I think they're nuts -- but what do I know ... I'm old.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

eherberg said:


> He may not be that unusual. The number of people using cell phone for internet access with no home broadband is currently on the rise. PewInternet research has 20% of adults using their phone as primary internet. If you break it down by age - the younger you go, the more that number rises. 28% of 18-29 year olds, 24% of 30-49 year olds. The research indicates it isn't economics that drives this. They're not using mobile data because they can't afford home broadband -- they just don't see a need for it.
> 
> I know that when I was staying in an apartment temporarily while my place out deep in the woods in Boonie-Land was being worked on, the 3 other people in the 4-plex all used mobile as their primary. I was the only person with wired broadband. They all had Netflix and such. But just like the young prefer their media consumption via phone/tablet, etc - an increasing number are just using their mobile data instead of getting home broadband.
> 
> Personally, I think they're nuts -- but what do I know ... I'm old.


Right. But, as you say, those folks are using their wireless internet connections for accessing subscription video services like Netflix, HBO Now, etc. Not sure they'd be all that interested in subscribing via OTA since they're apparently content getting it via their phones.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Right. But, as you say, those folks are using their wireless internet connections for accessing subscription video services like Netflix, HBO Now, etc. Not sure they'd be all that interested in subscribing via OTA since they're apparently content getting it via their phones.


HBO on a smartphone--my eyes hurt already.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Scooby Doo said:


> I think HBO is probably the least likely channel to go pay OTA since it's so much better on-demand than live. Live sports (ESPN, FS1, FS2) and news (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC) seem a bit more realistic. But I still doubt the economics work. And then there's the legacy contractual issues..


Yeah, I had that thought too. HBO comes to mind because it's the classic example of an a la carte subscription channel that one adds to the rest of their basic channel line-up. But I agree that live sports and news makes more sense as potential OTA subscription channels given that they're mainly watched live and that's really where broadcast TV is heading (see the "New Fox" game plan).

The question is whether those cable network owners are willing to break their sports and/or news nets out from the rest of their cable channel bundles and offer them direct-to-consumer in that way. And by pairing those channels in the OTA line-up right beside their free local affiliates, that also undercuts retrans comp that they get on those locals when consumers subscribe via MVPD.

As Bigg has touched on, it's hard to see why the major broadcast nets would really want to see ATSC 3.0 take off, as that would only encourage more cord-cutting and therefore loss of all that retransmission money. And splitting off some of their most high-value cable channels and offering them in subscription mini-bundles integrated into the 3.0 dial would only make it that much easier to cut the cord and get their main broadcast network for free. I tend to think that if at some point retrans comp starts going down due to an increase in cord cutting, we'll see the broadcast nets respond by doing what Fox already plans to do, which is focus on popular live sports (which can command high ad rates) and fill in the rest of airtime with cheap-to-produce stuff. The more expensive scripted series productions would gradually migrate to their pay platforms.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> HBO on a smartphone--my eyes hurt already.


Yes, but there is an accelerating trend towards wireless internet feeding larger screens. This will be a big thing for 5G; the only 5G device Verizon seems to be promoting is a WiFi router.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

eherberg said:


> He may not be that unusual. The number of people using cell phone for internet access with no home broadband is currently on the rise. PewInternet research has 20% of adults using their phone as primary internet. If you break it down by age - the younger you go, the more that number rises. 28% of 18-29 year olds, 24% of 30-49 year olds. The research indicates it isn't economics that drives this. They're not using mobile data because they can't afford home broadband -- they just don't see a need for it.


It makes more sense when you migrate from a household of PC users to a single or couple with capable phones. If you do not stream video, a hot spot will get the job done. My two sisters simply added tablets to their cell plans. Both use satellite (one Dish one DirecTV) for television.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

eherberg said:


> They're not using mobile data because they can't afford home broadband -- they just don't see a need for it.


If you look at the data, it is primarily low-income households. There may also be some rural users who can only get 1.5mbps DSL or something, and decide that they'd rather use LTE than slow DSL.



> I know that when I was staying in an apartment temporarily while my place out deep in the woods in Boonie-Land was being worked on, the 3 other people in the 4-plex all used mobile as their primary. I was the only person with wired broadband. They all had Netflix and such. But just like the young prefer their media consumption via phone/tablet, etc - an increasing number are just using their mobile data instead of getting home broadband.


I'm still trying to figure out how they survive without normal broadband. I use mobile only while on the road, but I blow a chunk of my 20GB plan in a week, and that's without doing everything I'd do at home. Most plans only have 10-15GB of MHS.



Mikeguy said:


> HBO on a smartphone--my eyes hurt already.


Yeah, no kidding. I want my giant TV and surround sound!


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> If you look at the data, it is primarily low-income households. There may also be some rural users who can only get 1.5mbps DSL or something, and decide that they'd rather use LTE than slow DSL.


Bigg, you are looking at old data. The times they are a changing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Bigg, you are looking at old data. The times they are a changing.


I would be interested to see any data supporting that. It just doesn't align with any data or anecdotal evidence that I've seen.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> I would be interested to see any data supporting that. It just doesn't align with any data or anecdotal evidence that I've seen.


I can only give you a block of anecdotal data. There is me with my intent to sever my ties with my ISP. There are my two sisters who already have. In my family 60% have truly cut the cord. I have this friend who ONLY maintains broadband and cable for his mother in law. When she moves on, he will be cell/antenna. His neighbor aspires to achieve the same.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

eherberg said:


> He may not be that unusual. The number of people using cell phone for internet access with no home broadband is currently on the rise. PewInternet research has 20% of adults using their phone as primary internet. If you break it down by age - the younger you go, the more that number rises. 28% of 18-29 year olds, 24% of 30-49 year olds. The research indicates it isn't economics that drives this. They're not using mobile data because they can't afford home broadband -- they just don't see a need for it.
> 
> I know that when I was staying in an apartment temporarily while my place out deep in the woods in Boonie-Land was being worked on, the 3 other people in the 4-plex all used mobile as their primary. I was the only person with wired broadband. They all had Netflix and such. But just like the young prefer their media consumption via phone/tablet, etc - an increasing number are just using their mobile data instead of getting home broadband.
> 
> Personally, I think they're nuts -- but what do I know ... I'm old.


Wait till they travel there are major metropolitan areas, to this day that can't maintain a consistent 4g connection, digital dead spots still exist. Most voice is still on 2g  and there are places where even that is not reliable. No one wants a cell tower on their property or near them. 5g will not fix all these problems. Mobile and wireless should still not be depended on. You're not old, you're smart. Too many people drink the tech Kool-Aid.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> I can only give you a block of anecdotal data. There is me with my intent to sever my ties with my ISP. There are my two sisters who already have. In my family 60% have truly cut the cord. I have this friend who ONLY maintains broadband and cable for his mother in law. When she moves on, he will be cell/antenna. His neighbor aspires to achieve the same.


I'll tell you anyone who doesn't have home internet is going against the trend and against the norm. Everyone I know is using more internet, more bandwidth, has more devices networked, is streaming more video, and generally becoming more dependent on broadband.



tenthplanet said:


> Most voice is still on 2g


Most of your points about cell phones being inconsistent are true, but that statement is simply WRONG. Most voice goes via VoLTE, and what doesn't go via VoLTE is primarily 3G technology on AT&T. A small amount is on CDMA on Verizon, and of course Sprint uses CDMA, which is relatively small compared to the other carriers.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Bigg said:


> I'll tell you anyone who doesn't have home internet is going against the trend and against the norm. Everyone I know is using more internet, more bandwidth, has more devices networked, is streaming more video, and generally becoming more dependent on broadband.


Mobile carriers are now bundling streaming subscriptions with their unlimited plans. T-Mobile offers Netflix, ATT offers a choice between HBO, STARZ, Showtime, Cinemax, Amazon Music Unlimited, or Pandora Premium. So it's not entirely implausible to use these services without traditional residential broadband. Even if you're mobile hot-spotting to a set-top box connected to a real TV.

But I wouldn't want to. The streams are usually limited to 480p. That's fine on a phone or tablet; but not on a 65" TV.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I'll tell you anyone who doesn't have home internet is going against the trend and against the norm. Everyone I know is using more internet, more bandwidth, has more devices networked, is streaming more video, and generally becoming more dependent on broadband.
> 
> Most of your points about cell phones being inconsistent are true, but that statement is simply WRONG. Most voice goes via VoLTE, and what doesn't go via VoLTE is primarily 3G technology on AT&T. A small amount is on CDMA on Verizon, and of course Sprint uses CDMA, which is relatively small compared to the other carriers.


Home internet sure, but there are many that are on 25mbps or slower internet.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> Mobile carriers are now bundling streaming subscriptions with their unlimited plans. T-Mobile offers Netflix, ATT offers a choice between HBO, STARZ, Showtime, Cinemax, Amazon Music Unlimited, or Pandora Premium. So it's not entirely implausible to use these services without traditional residential broadband. Even if you're mobile hot-spotting to a set-top box connected to a real TV.


No. You can't practically use a phone as your only internet. You're going to burn through your 10GB or 15GB MHS cap in a couple of days. It just doesn't make any sense. Further, if you don't have home internet access, you can't use smarthome devices, streaming devices, voice assistants, etc. It just doesn't add up. The trends are all towards having homes that are more connected, not less.



> But I wouldn't want to. The streams are usually limited to 480p. That's fine on a phone or tablet; but not on a 65" TV.


No one would want to, it makes no sense.



smark said:


> Home internet sure, but there are many that are on 25mbps or slower internet.


I suppose if you only look at home *broadband*, you would exclude a lot of people on 6-18mbps DSL technologies, like here in CT, where a lot of people have VDSL because it's much cheaper than cable. That's not fundamentally different from having broadband, you just can't stream 4k video or have a lot of people streaming HD video at the same time.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Bigg said:


> No. You can't practically use a phone as your only internet. You're going to burn through your 10GB or 15GB MHS cap in a couple of days. It just doesn't make any sense. Further, if you don't have home internet access, you can't use smarthome devices, streaming devices, voice assistants, etc. It just doesn't add up. The trends are all towards having homes that are more connected, not less.
> 
> No one would want to, it makes no sense.
> 
> I suppose if you only look at home *broadband*, you would exclude a lot of people on 6-18mbps DSL technologies, like here in CT, where a lot of people have VDSL because it's much cheaper than cable. That's not fundamentally different from having broadband, you just can't stream 4k video or have a lot of people streaming HD video at the same time.


Or in a lot of cases, stream video while doing other things with the bandwidth unless these folks are magically capable of doing QoS on a device that probably doesn't allow access to that (most people using provider modem + router).


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> No. You can't practically use a phone as your only internet. You're going to burn through your 10GB or 15GB MHS cap in a couple of days.


Doesn't that sort of assume that everyone had a 10/15GB plan? There are plenty of unlimited plans out there now. Yes, some may have a cap of around 100GB, but there are certainly many that are genuinely unlimited.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

smark said:


> Or in a lot of cases, stream video while doing other things with the bandwidth unless these folks are magically capable of doing QoS on a device that probably doesn't allow access to that (most people using provider modem + router).


Possibly. HD Netflix, which is 3-6mbps is probably fine with light web browsing, which is mostly what most people do on the internet anyway.



Scooby Doo said:


> Doesn't that sort of assume that everyone had a 10/15GB plan? There are plenty of unlimited plans out there now. Yes, some may have a cap of around 100GB, but there are certainly many that are genuinely unlimited.


I was talking about MHS. Virtually all of the Unlimited plans except for a long gone grandfathered Verizon plan and a recently gone grandfathered T-Mobile plan have strict throttled caps on MHS of 10-15GB, maybe 20GB, even though they offer Unlimited data on the phone itself. If you were super rural, you could use an HDMI adapter on an iPhone or the newer Galaxy S devices to do Netflix on your TV, but that's a kludge, and not something your average cheapskate is doing just to not have home internet.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm sorry to try to mention the original topic, but how about that Amazon Recast? Any more thoughts on that?


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Bigg said:


> I'll tell you anyone who doesn't have home internet is going against the trend and against the norm. Everyone I know is using more internet, more bandwidth, has more devices networked, is streaming more video, and generally becoming more dependent on broadband.
> 
> Most of your points about cell phones being inconsistent are true, but that statement is simply WRONG. Most voice goes via VoLTE, and what doesn't go via VoLTE is primarily 3G technology on AT&T. A small amount is on CDMA on Verizon, and of course Sprint uses CDMA, which is relatively small compared to the other carriers.


No 4g no VoLTE, 4g is a lot more hit and miss then it should be. Overloaded towers will dump you into 3g.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> No 4g no VoLTE, 4g is a lot more hit and miss then it should be. Overloaded towers will dump you into 3g.


Most people are using VoLTE, so it is inaccurate to say that most people are using 2G. They're not.


----------



## redrouteone (Jun 16, 2001)

Bigg said:


> I'm sorry to try to mention the original topic, but how about that Amazon Recast? Any more thoughts on that?


I had ordered one and was lookin forward to it. However I got laid off today and decided to cancel the order.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

redrouteone said:


> I had ordered one and was lookin forward to it. However I got laid off today and decided to cancel the order.


Sorry you were laid off


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

redrouteone said:


> I had ordered one and was lookin forward to it. However I got laid off today and decided to cancel the order.


Sorry to hear. Good luck finding a new job!


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

The Recast comes out Wednesday. I think it’s interesting but I’m waiting for the reviews.

With a DVR the devil’s in the details and I really want to know how good the software and UI are.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Despite serious temptation, I'm waiting six months. The Fire TV Cube was a big goose-egg; and I can't trust Amazon with a release-day buy on the Recast. It would have to perform better (or be cleaner) than my HD HomeRun + Plex combo for me actually consider replacing.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

What don’t you like about the Cube?

I think it’s great. Replaced a Echo dot in my living room for TiVo and light controls and added the ability for tv and soundbar controls too.


----------



## Prestond (Feb 4, 2008)

redrouteone said:


> I had ordered one and was lookin forward to it. However I got laid off today and decided to cancel the order.


So sorry about losing your job, you seem to be quite a smart and capable person (I am basing that on the fact you hang out here  ), I am sure you can find something... best of luck!


----------



## Prestond (Feb 4, 2008)

cwoody222 said:


> The Recast comes out Wednesday. I think it's interesting but I'm waiting for the reviews.
> 
> With a DVR the devil's in the details and I really want to know how good the software and UI are.


Yeah me too... am very interested on tuner sensitivity and how this will work with remote viewing and other features such as commercial skipping.

But am very eager to bite if the recast holds up.


----------



## redrouteone (Jun 16, 2001)

Prestond said:


> So sorry about losing your job, you seem to be quite a smart and capable person (I am basing that on the fact you hang out here  ), I am sure you can find something... best of luck!


Thanks. I knew my job wasn't the most stable, so I've been saving like crazy the past couple of years. I work in tech, so shouldn't be too hard to find another job. I'm been feeling burned out, so I am thinking I am going to take a month or two just to decompress before I start looking.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

cwoody222 said:


> What don't you like about the Cube?


Selling me features that I don't want or need.

Already have Dots paired with my FireTVs, I don't need Echo built in to a set top box. Why yell across a room when a Dot can be at your end table? (especially if you have a home theatre setup)

Don't need a/v control features over voice that don't work so great.

And not selling me an actual 3rd Gen 4K Fire TV set-top box w/built in ethernet like I wanted in the first place.
Avg review score FireTV Cube 3.4. (every other FireTV is > 4.0)
But the new 4K Fire Sticks will sell for $35 during Black Friday week. I will grudgingly replace my 1st gen FireTVs with those. (and buy a couple of Amazon Ethernet Adapters too)


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> Selling me features that I don't want or need.
> 
> Already have Dots paired with my FireTVs, I don't need Echo built in to a set top box. Why yell across a room when a Dot can be at your end table? (especially if you have a home theatre setup)
> 
> ...


Wireless is faster with the FireTV Stick 4k than with the Amazon wired adapter.

Although there is some after market adpater that will allow up to 400Mb/s over the wired connection. While the Amazon wired adapter is limited to 100Mb/s.

I get around 200Mb/s speeds, over Wifi, with my two FireTV 4k Sticks.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Wireless is faster with the FireTV Stick 4k than with the Amazon wired adapter.


A rock solid 93mbps Ethernet connection is superior to a wireless connection that is inherently less reliable, even if it can peak to 400mbps. That being said, wireless really is "good enough" at this point for the vast majority of uses.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Curious: What benefit does network connection speed greater than a solid 100 Mbps offer on any Fire TV device (Cube, stick, etc)?


----------



## JLV03 (Feb 12, 2018)

I don't know if related, but I noticed on the Settings screen on my FireTV Stick there is a setting for live channels. Currently it just shows some news channels from Pluto. There is also a Live section on the main screen showing these same channels. 

Looks like Recast integration is coming whether you have the device or not.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Curious: What benefit does network connection speed greater than a solid 100 Mbps offer on any Fire TV device (Cube, stick, etc)?


It might make buffering 4k a fraction of a second faster, but seriously, I'd rather have wired for reliability.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> A rock solid 93mbps Ethernet connection is superior to a wireless connection that is inherently less reliable, even if it can peak to 400mbps. That being said, wireless really is "good enough" at this point for the vast majority of uses.


My wireless is Rock solid with my five Access Points. I could stream my high bitrate UHD MKV rips all day long and not even have a blip with a wireless connection. The experience is as solid as a wired connection.

Although if a device has a GigE port, then I will use that. But any device that gives me much faster throughput over wifi, than with their 100mbps Ethernet connection, I always put those devices on wifi.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Curious: What benefit does network connection speed greater than a solid 100 Mbps offer on any Fire TV device (Cube, stick, etc)?


For regular streaming services, nothing. The experience will be identical to a wired connection. Since all streaming services use low bitrates. For me with either wired or wireless, all streaming services either start at a UHD encode or ramp up to it within a few seconds.

Where I need the faster throughput is from local play back. I have many files with bitrates between 100Mbps and up to 200 Mbps. You can't play those on a 100BT wired connected that gives you a max throughput of only 95Mbps.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> My wireless is Rock solid with my five Access Points. I could stream my high bitrate UHD MKV rips all day long and not even have a blip with a wireless connection. The experience is as solid as a wired connection.


I still like having everything hardwired. I may switch to wireless at some point though just to reduce the mass of cabling behind my HT setup.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> For regular streaming services, nothing. The experience will be identical to a wired connection. Since all streaming services use low bitrates. For me with either wired or wireless, all streaming services either start at a UHD encode or ramp up to it within a few seconds.
> 
> Where I need the faster throughput is from local play back. I have many files with bitrates between 100Mbps and up to 200 Mbps. You can't play those on a 100BT wired connected that gives you a max throughput of only 95Mbps.


What kind of files have those high bitrates?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JLV03 said:


> I don't know if related, but I noticed on the Settings screen on my FireTV Stick there is a setting for live channels. Currently it just shows some news channels from Pluto. There is also a Live section on the main screen showing these same channels.
> 
> Looks like Recast integration is coming whether you have the device or not.


This definitely involves recast integration. See my earlier post including the link to AFTVnews.com that gives more detail:
Amazon has announced a DVR


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

JLV03 said:


> I don't know if related, but I noticed on the Settings screen on my FireTV Stick there is a setting for live channels. Currently it just shows some news channels from Pluto. There is also a Live section on the main screen showing these same channels.
> 
> Looks like Recast integration is coming whether you have the device or not.


I don't see this. Do you have a Tecast on preorder?

EDIT: Nevermind, I read the AFTV article now.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

cwoody222 said:


> I don't see this. Do you have a Tecast on preorder?
> 
> EDIT: Nevermind, I read the AFTV article now.


It is a little misleading. The AFTV article led me to expect "On Now" as a selection at the top of the home screen, whereas you have to scroll down to that row. That is tedious to me. On my FTV Cube I've tried "go to on now", "open on now", etc., none of which work. However I can just say "(alexa) open guide" and I immediately get the program guide grid. I don't know what would happen if there is nothing to display in the grid (such as PS Vue, Amazon Channel(s), Recast, or Pluto). The only source I have is Pluto (must be installed) so that's what I get.

Only 4 more days till someone will have a Recast in hand! Eager for reports! I wish I could justify buying one but I have a Roamio Basic (846) that can be configured for OTA when I cut cable.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

dlfl said:


> It is a little misleading. The AFTV article led me to expect "On Now" as a selection at the top of the home screen, whereas you have to scroll down to that row. That is tedious to me. On my FTV Cube I've tried "go to on now", "open on now", etc., none of which work. However I can just say "(alexa) open guide" and I immediately get the program guide grid. I don't know what would happen if there is nothing to display in the grid (such as PS Vue, Amazon Channel(s), Recast, or Pluto). The only source I have is Pluto (must be installed) so that's what I get.
> 
> Only 4 more days till someone will have a Recast in hand! Eager for reports! I wish I could justify buying one but I have a Roamio Basic (846) that can be configured for OTA when I cut cable.


Thanks for this! I just installed Pluto and couldn't find the "On Now" guide myself, your explanation helped!

Nice that I didn't even need to create a Pluto account, just install and go.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

cwoody222 said:


> Thanks for this! I just installed Pluto and couldn't find the "On Now" guide myself, your explanation helped!
> 
> Nice that I didn't even need to create a Pluto account, just install and go.


Yes, I don't know what having a Pluto account does for you.


----------



## Prestond (Feb 4, 2008)

Hey if anyone gets a Recast, post here your experience with the device... Curious to know. 

May take a couple of days for any reports or reviews if they don't ship until Wednesday (will people who pre-order get them on Wednesday or will they just ship that day?). Not sure why they waited unless they are looking for a black Friday or cyber Monday bump.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Prestond said:


> ........
> will people who pre-order get them on Wednesday ......


Yes. Clearly stated on Recast product page.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Here is a description of the new Amazon DVR

Hardware overview of the Amazon Fire TV Recast network tuner and DVR


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Tablo OTA DVR vs. Amazon Fire TV Recast Comparison - What Cord Cutters Need to Know


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 7, 2016)

Prestond said:


> Hey if anyone gets a Recast, post here your experience with the device... Curious to know.
> 
> May take a couple of days for any reports or reviews if they don't ship until Wednesday (will people who pre-order get them on Wednesday or will they just ship that day?). Not sure why they waited unless they are looking for a black Friday or cyber Monday bump.


No shipping notification yet for me, so I definitely won't be getting it today.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Plex DVR review: Still the best option for power users

AMAZON FIRE TV RECAST REVIEW: THE CORD CUTTER'S DVR


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The frame rate thing is interesting, I just wish that they would convert 1080i to 1080p, not 720p, as there is a loss of resolution at 720p, and it's noticeable, at least to me. I'm sticking with TiVo myself, but this is an interesting device for people who are into the Amazon Ecosystem.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

We'll find out about both of these over time now that they look like direct competitors. Amazon has massive amounts of money and will probably refine this to fit it's costumers pretty quickly. I'm betting at some point they will give away the fire stick with it. It's really nice to see all these options!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I've read two reviews for it so far. The Verge gives it a 7.5 while SlashGear gives it an 8.0 (both out of 10). Both reviewers like it overall but ding it for supporting only two concurrent viewers and because the mobile app isn't great. The app doesn't even allow you to schedule future recordings, although Amazon has said that will change.

At any rate, the Fire TV Recast sounds like a very good effort for a first-gen product. Will be interesting to see how competitors respond. Will Roku and/or Apple come out with similar offerings for their ecosystems? Or might we see either of those platforms work with existing OTA DVR options like HDHomeRun or Tablo to better integrate their features into Roku or Apple devices?


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Apple should come out with one of their very polished version of this. Amazon might have just kind of rushed this to get it out before Christmas.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mschnebly said:


> Apple should come out with one of their very polished version of this. Amazon might have just kind of rushed this to get it out before Christmas.


Apple is probably the last company I could see coming out with a DVR. Apple always seems to be looking to the next thing, not going back and creating a product that's been around for two decades. It would be like Apple coming out with their own DVD player. I just don't see it happening.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Apple is probably the last company I could see coming out with a DVR. Apple always seems to be looking to the next thing, not going back and creating a product that's been around for two decades. It would be like Apple coming out with their own DVD player. I just don't see it happening.


Yeah. I tend to agree. It would be nice for us Apple TV owners if Apple decided to throw some pocket change at Channels and buy their app/DVR service (which works with HDHomeRun network tuners) and just integrate it into the upcoming revamp of Apple's own TV app. I think that's pretty unlikely too but it feels to me more like something they might do than fully embrace OTA TV by bringing out their own tuner/DVR hardware.

But, as you say, Apple is very future-focused and I suspect they see antenna-based TV as antiquated, clunky and downscale, all descriptors which Apple wants to protect their brand from like the plague. Still though, we are seeing Apple partner with clunky old cable TV providers like Spectrum to allow the Apple TV to be used as a cable box...


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Apple is probably the last company I could see coming out with a DVR. Apple always seems to be looking to the next thing, not going back and creating a product that's been around for two decades. It would be like Apple coming out with their own DVD player. I just don't see it happening.


Agree. Also, Apple will only launch something they can build to serve a global market. Demodulator chips supporting ATSC/DVB-T/ISDB-T already exist. It would be interesting to know if the Amazon Recast uses one of these.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Could you imagine Apple doing OTA TV and dealing with how to connect and aim an antenna? I certainly can't. It doesn't fit the Apple "automagical" method of doing things. Amazon is willing to go everywhere and do everything. You can now connect an antenna and an analog phone line into the Amazon ecosystem.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Lurker1 said:


> Tablo OTA DVR vs. Amazon Fire TV Recast Comparison - What Cord Cutters Need to Know


You may want to put in big bold letters *(WRITTEN BY TABLO.COM)* Read it for two minutes before I realized it was the Tablo blog.


----------



## giomania (Aug 25, 2017)

aaronwt said:


> For regular streaming services, nothing. The experience will be identical to a wired connection. Since all streaming services use low bitrates. For me with either wired or wireless, all streaming services either start at a UHD encode or ramp up to it within a few seconds.
> 
> Where I need the faster throughput is from local play back. I have many files with bitrates between 100Mbps and up to 200 Mbps. You can't play those on a 100BT wired connected that gives you a max throughput of only 95Mbps.


I see that UHD-BD specification allows for three disc capacities, each with its own data rate: 50 GB with 82 Mbit/s, 66 GB with 108 Mbit/s, and 100 GB with 128 Mbit/s.

I thought I recall reading that most movies only used ~50 Mbps, but maybe that is old news?
.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

giomania said:


> I see that UHD-BD specification allows for three disc capacities, each with its own data rate: 50 GB with 82 Mbit/s, 66 GB with 108 Mbit/s, and 100 GB with 128 Mbit/s.


I totally missed aaronwt's post. I don't have ripped UHD BDs, so it's not an issue for me. How does one even rip a UHD BD? Are they are same disc as a BD, just with UHD content on them? I just assumed that they are physically different.


----------



## giomania (Aug 25, 2017)

Bigg said:


> I totally missed aaronwt's post. I don't have ripped UHD BDs, so it's not an issue for me. How does one even rip a UHD BD? Are they are same disc as a BD, just with UHD content on them? I just assumed that they are physically different.


This document should explain a lot:

UHD-BD Backup & Playback Guidance - 2018-10.docx

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Bigg said:


> Could you imagine Apple doing OTA TV and dealing with how to connect and aim an antenna? I certainly can't. It doesn't fit the Apple "automagical" method of doing things. Amazon is willing to go everywhere and do everything. You can now connect an antenna and an analog phone line into the Amazon ecosystem.


Amazon is in a race, make that war with Google. This is just another chip in that war.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> You may want to put in big bold letters *(WRITTEN BY TABLO.COM)* Read it for two minutes before I realized it was the Tablo blog.


I actually read through the entire thing, and found it to be almost an entirely fair comparison of the two platforms. I think Tablo has a lot of fundamental advantages in that space, so pointing them out is reasonable. The only thing I see that makes no sense is the power consumption, since both platforms transcode, they just do it at different points, and transcoding chips don't use much power anyway.

If you want to read a load of biased bull**** in the cord cutting space, this might take the cake. It is the most factually inaccurate pile of nonsensical crap I have just about ever read. Not only is the whole mentality and mindset of it wrong, there is literal factual inaccuracies through the whole thing, and a lot of arguments that just make absolutely no sense or are totally irrelevant. Meanwhile, Verizon's just tries to sell you faster internet you don't need.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Bigg said:


> Could you imagine Apple doing OTA TV and dealing with how to connect and aim an antenna? I certainly can't. It doesn't fit the Apple "automagical" method of doing things. Amazon is willing to go everywhere and do everything. You can now connect an antenna and an analog phone line into the Amazon ecosystem.


Since the ATV already has a built in TV app I can see them incorporating the info from others like Channels. It already has the Up Next, Sports, News, Trending movies, etc sections all built in. I dont think they would do the hardware. But it's already somewhat setup for TV.

Apple TV 4K

TV


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I actually read through the entire thing, and found it to be almost an entirely fair comparison of the two platforms. I think Tablo has a lot of fundamental advantages in that space, so pointing them out is reasonable. The only thing I see that makes no sense is the power consumption, since both platforms transcode, they just do it at different points, and transcoding chips don't use much power anyway.
> 
> If you want to read a load of biased bull**** in the cord cutting space, this might take the cake. It is the most factually inaccurate pile of nonsensical crap I have just about ever read. Not only is the whole mentality and mindset of it wrong, there is literal factual inaccuracies through the whole thing, and a lot of arguments that just make absolutely no sense or are totally irrelevant. Meanwhile, Verizon's just tries to sell you faster internet you don't need.


That actually reads like an article to scare grandmas into keeping their cable....you'll need a HDMI cable...costs $10...the horror.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)




----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Looks like their competition from AT&T has finally arrived. This stuff is moving so fast that it's mind numbing. LOL Just in time for your Christmas gift!

DIRECTV NOW is Asking For Public Testers For Their New Streaming Player - Cord Cutters News


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mschnebly said:


> Since the ATV already has a built in TV app I can see them incorporating the info from others like Channels. It already has the Up Next, Sports, News, Trending movies, etc sections all built in. I dont think they would do the hardware. But it's already somewhat setup for TV.


I still can't imagine Apple supporting OTA unless they integrate someone else's service/device into their TV app.



PSU_Sudzi said:


> That actually reads like an article to scare grandmas into keeping their cable....you'll need a HDMI cable...costs $10...the horror.


Something like that. It's such a pile of incoherent nonsense, complete with a whole bunch of inaccurate and misleading comparisons.



mschnebly said:


> Looks like their competition from AT&T has finally arrived. This stuff is moving so fast that it's mind numbing. LOL Just in time for your Christmas gift!


Yeah, this space is moving so fast it's incredible. It's going to be interesting to see how AT&T attempts to untangle their multiple overlapping streaming and satellite brands.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> Looks like their competition from AT&T has finally arrived. This stuff is moving so fast that it's mind numbing. LOL Just in time for your Christmas gift!
> 
> DIRECTV NOW is Asking For Public Testers For Their New Streaming Player - Cord Cutters News





Bigg said:


> It's going to be interesting to see how AT&T attempts to untangle their multiple overlapping streaming and satellite brands.


The photo that Cord Cutters News is showing with that story definitely appears to be AT&T STB model C71, which they filed with the FCC just over a year ago. If you look at the user manual they filed with it, it mentions that it might be used in conjunction with a piece of AT&T hardware dubbed "HS-27," which would appear to be the next-generation home server used for satellite TV service. (Currently, they deploy the HS-17, a central hub containing the satellite tuners and DVR hard drive, and place C61 "Genie Minis" at each TV.)

I've been predicting for months that AT&T would use this same C71 STB (running an AT&T-modified version of Google's Android TV) for new subscribers of both their satellite service (in conjunction with the HS27 and a rooftop dish) and their forthcoming flagship OTT service (standalone, no additional hardware needed). Using the same STB for both would obviously allow for cost-savings and it would also make it easier for satellite subscribers to switch to OTT in the future if they decided to. (I imagine that local recordings on the HS27 could easily be uploaded to AT&T's cloud DVR servers.)

It seems to me that, from a marketing standpoint, it would make the most sense if AT&T just branded the upcoming streaming version of full DirecTV as simply "DirecTV". It would indicate to consumers that it isn't anything less, it isn't a cord-cutting compromise, it's just DirecTV but without the need for a dish and with a little less expensive monthly bill. When customers sign up for DirecTV online, they would be presented with the new streaming version, although they could instead opt to take the satellite version, but at a higher price for the same channel packages.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mschnebly said:


> Looks like their competition from AT&T has finally arrived. This stuff is moving so fast that it's mind numbing. LOL Just in time for your Christmas gift!
> 
> DIRECTV NOW is Asking For Public Testers For Their New Streaming Player - Cord Cutters News


I'm skeptical that many people will want the same DirecTV packages and pricing, only streamed over the internet instead of a satellite dish. My perception is that many people who have satellite are people in rural areas that don't have the option for traditional cable and broadband internet. And people who currently have DirecTV but no home internet will have to pay the same price for DirecTV plus ~$70/month for home internet.

The only people I see this being an advantage to are people who have broadband home internet and want DirecTV, but have some kind of obstruction blocking line of sight to the satellite. Though I suppose it would be less of a hassle signing up for DirecTV this way rather than having some guy come to your home and install a satellite dish. But for people who already have DirecTV through a dish, I don't see any incentive to switch over to streaming.


----------



## Daviator00 (Dec 5, 2017)

Sheffield Steve said:


> Today, Amazon announced their Firetv recast 500GB DVR
> 
> Amazon Fire TV Recast lets you send live TV recordings to your device


Most of the replies the original post appear to be from those who still enjoy Tivo and deny that its days are numbered. I too used to love Tivo but my experience over the past year has been terrible. The Tivo I used to know has been replaced with terrible hardware, terrible software and above all terrible customer service.

I dumped cable as I was tired of paying upwards of $250 a month. By dumping cable and the home phone we are now under $70 a month. At first, the Tivo (well, the second Tivo and the first was defective) worked pretty dang well with the OTA channels. But then somewhere along the line it started taking a dive. It worked with fewer and fewer channels and just recently it puked and would no longer display the Search, What to Watch or Apps.

The skip "feature" is a joke as it's completely hit or miss. It might work on a program 3-4 days in a row but them skip a day or two and not work. It's also no secret by reading the posts in this forum that the Bolt has major overheating problems. And above all, Tivo acts as if they could not care less.

I envision their offices to be a handful of die-hards who are too scared or too stupid to find new jobs. I picture a bunch of empty cubes and mostly absent "senior" management milking every last dollar they can squeeze from the company before it tanks. They've off-shored their support to the B or C team of support companies. If they can't fix it in their 3 scripted steps then they start to just make stuff up.

Tivo used to be a great disrupter but sadly, it is now the disrupted. They are rapidly becoming the 14.4 modem of DVRs.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> Looks like their competition from AT&T has finally arrived. This stuff is moving so fast that it's mind numbing. LOL Just in time for your Christmas gift!
> 
> DIRECTV NOW is Asking For Public Testers For Their New Streaming Player - Cord Cutters News


Thanks. Just signed up. Fingers crossed.

Main advantage of this box is simplification for the technically challenged like my 80+ y/o mom. I can handle juggling a half dozen streaming and recording devices and dozens of apps. But that kind of thing is really tough for the elderly. If this box can make streaming more like watching a cable box, then I think it will be a hit.

Of course it can never replace satellite for those who have no/limited internet service. The best hope for that is 5G eventually making it to the boonies.

Recast is still the best all-round cord-cutter solution that combines OTA, OTT and streaming services. I'd stick with Tivo if they'd add some OTT apps. But I don't think that will ever happen.

But another way Tivo could solve the problem is make a full blown client app that runs on streaming devices. That way you could record and access live TV from your Tivo on the same streaming device that runs all your OTT apps in exactly the same way that Fire TV and Recast work together. I'm not holding my breath for this either.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Daviator00 said:


> Most of the replies the original post appear to be from those who still enjoy Tivo and deny that its days are numbered. I too used to love Tivo but my experience over the past year has been terrible. The Tivo I used to know has been replaced with terrible hardware, terrible software and above all terrible customer service.
> 
> I dumped cable as I was tired of paying upwards of $250 a month. By dumping cable and the home phone we are now under $70 a month. At first, the Tivo (well, the second Tivo and the first was defective) worked pretty dang well with the OTA channels. But then somewhere along the line it started taking a dive. It worked with fewer and fewer channels and just recently it puked and would no longer display the Search, What to Watch or Apps.
> 
> ...


Lol, wow. And simply on one matter, no "Bolt major overheating problem" here.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> Looks like their competition from AT&T has finally arrived. This stuff is moving so fast that it's mind numbing. LOL Just in time for your Christmas gift!
> 
> DIRECTV NOW is Asking For Public Testers For Their New Streaming Player - Cord Cutters News


Yeah, I got the email and filled out the form. We will see.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> Lol, wow. And simply on one matter, no "Bolt major overheating problem" here.


I don't have a Bolt, so I don't really care. But there seems to be something to this claim.
Bolt OTA Temperature...
Bolt + ODT Temp
Laptop cooling pad for Bolt?
My Awesome BOLT Cooling Mods ;-)
Confirmed: Bolt is overheating and causing signal loss
BOLT Stock Cooling SUCKS
Documenting my Bolt Experiences...


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

mdavej said:


> I don't have a Bolt, so I don't really care. But there seems to be something to this claim.
> Bolt OTA Temperature...
> Bolt + ODT Temp
> Laptop cooling pad for Bolt?
> ...


Absolutely--some have seen an issue and have posted (or otherwise have had no issue but are concerned regardless). And I wonder how many haven't seen an issue, including those not posting about their non-issue . . . .


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I'm skeptical that many people will want the same DirecTV packages and pricing, only streamed over the internet instead of a satellite dish.


AT&T has more than once stated that the ongoing monthly price for this new service will be somewhat less than what they charge for satellite, even though it will be a flagship service, comparable to DTV satellite and Uverse TV. Lower customer acquisition costs and hardware costs for the new service, plus there may be greater opportunity there to exploit their Xander online targeted ad platform.



tarheelblue32 said:


> But for people who already have DirecTV through a dish, I don't see any incentive to switch over to streaming.


Well, if it lowers their bill by, say, $15 a month, that might do it. We'll see...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mdavej said:


> Main advantage of this box is simplification for the technically challenged like my 80+ y/o mom. I can handle juggling a half dozen streaming and recording devices and dozens of apps. But that kind of thing is really tough for the elderly. If this box can make streaming more like watching a cable box, then I think it will be a hit.


Yep. Lots of folks (including, but not just, the elderly) want a traditional TV-centric UI with a full-fledged remote control. They don't want to watch "regular TV" through a Roku. I also have my eye on what AT&T's doing here as a possible alternative for my parents who have been on Dish for ages now.



mdavej said:


> Of course it can never replace satellite for those who have no/limited internet service. The best hope for that is 5G eventually making it to the boonies.


It'll be interesting to see what T-Mobile does here, starting in 2019. They're saying they want to become a major home broadband provider (via fixed 5G) and plan to offer the service (along with the upcoming OTT live TV service) to rural areas.

T-Mobile details 5G home broadband plan to undercut Charter and Comcast


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> Yep. Lots of folks (including, but not just, the elderly) want a traditional TV-centric UI with a full-fledged remote control. They don't want to watch "regular TV" through a Roku. I also have my eye on what AT&T's doing here as a possible alternative for my parents who have been on Dish for ages now.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see what T-Mobile does here, starting in 2019. They're saying they want to become a major home broadband provider (via fixed 5G) and plan to offer the service (along with the upcoming OTT live TV service) to rural areas.
> 
> T-Mobile details 5G home broadband plan to undercut Charter and Comcast


I guess it's also possible that this new box is another way to get those customers who live in Town-homes, apartments or homes with an HOA where no dish is allowed. Everyone is grabbing customers now. LOL Ted Nugent said it best...

"The stakes are high and so am I
It's in the air tonight
It's a free-for-all"


----------



## redrouteone (Jun 16, 2001)

NashGuy said:


> It'll be interesting to see what T-Mobile does here, starting in 2019. They're saying they want to become a major home broadband provider (via fixed 5G) and plan to offer the service (along with the upcoming OTT live TV service) to rural areas.
> 
> T-Mobile details 5G home broadband plan to undercut Charter and Comcast


I am really looking forward to the rollout of 5G. In my areas the choice is overpriced cable from Suddenlink or slow overpriced DSL from AT&T.

The 100Mbps they mention would be more fast enough for me. Hopefully it will come in at about $50/month.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

redrouteone said:


> I am really looking forward to the rollout of 5G. In my areas the choice is overpriced cable from Suddenlink or slow overpriced DSL from AT&T.
> 
> The 100Mbps they mention would be more fast enough for me. Hopefully it will come in at about $50/month.


Yeah. If T-Mo can offer reliable standalone internet service at symmetrical 100Mbps speeds for $50/month, regular price, no contracts, no caps, equipment included, they'll do some serious damage to cable. Starry offers that (but at 200Mbps) for $50, although they're very limited in their rollout and will likely never scale to the degree that T-Mo will.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mschnebly said:


> I guess it's also possible that this new box is another way to get those customers who live in Town-homes, apartments or homes with an HOA where no dish is allowed.


Restrictions by apartments and HOAs on small satellite dishes and antennas are unenforceable under federal regulations. Even if your lease or HOA says you can't put one up, you legally can.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> It seems to me that, from a marketing standpoint, it would make the most sense if AT&T just branded the upcoming streaming version of full DirecTV as simply "DirecTV". It would indicate to consumers that it isn't anything less, it isn't a cord-cutting compromise, it's just DirecTV but without the need for a dish and with a little less expensive monthly bill. When customers sign up for DirecTV online, they would be presented with the new streaming version, although they could instead opt to take the satellite version, but at a higher price for the same channel packages.


They should never have branded DirecTV NOW with the DirecTV name, people are stupid and think it requires a dish, just like they are stupid and think PS Vue requires a Playstation. They have wasted BILLIONS of dollars marketing that you don't need a DISH, they wouldn't have had to do if they hadn't called it DirecTV in the first place.



tarheelblue32 said:


> The only people I see this being an advantage to are people who have broadband home internet and want DirecTV, but have some kind of obstruction blocking line of sight to the satellite. Though I suppose it would be less of a hassle signing up for DirecTV this way rather than having some guy come to your home and install a satellite dish. But for people who already have DirecTV through a dish, I don't see any incentive to switch over to streaming.


It will be cheaper, and a LOT of people live in MDUs where they can't get satellite reception. Increasingly, baby boomers are moving into condos and other types of MDUs and the country as a whole is urbanizing and living in multifamily buildings. Of course, at the same time, people are cutting the cord like crazy, but if AT&T is going to hang onto a decent share of the rapidly shrinking pay tv market, an OTT service is going to be that way that they do it. Also, with OTT, they can move U-Verse and AT&T Fiber customers onto it and bundle it. Further, I predict that they will partner with small cable companies, since the small cable companies can't negotiate good rates, and will exit the pay tv business, and start reselling AT&T TV, and they will simply get a cut of the action for selling and installing it, which, even if it's a small cut, is a heck of a lot better than losing money on TV like many are today.



Daviator00 said:


> Tivo used to be a great disrupter but sadly, it is now the disrupted. They are rapidly becoming the 14.4 modem of DVRs.


HUH? My TiVo Roamio OTA is great. Of course, that's a business problem for TiVo, as I have zero incentive to upgrade when the box that I bought for $199 with Lifetime on a refurb Black Friday deal 2 years ago is still absolutely awesome.



tarheelblue32 said:


> Restrictions by apartments and HOAs on small satellite dishes and antennas are unenforceable under federal regulations. Even if your lease or HOA says you can't put one up, you legally can.


Only if you have an exclusive use area outside AND you can see the southern sky from there. Otherwise, you're hosed. The HOA can block you from putting a dish on top of the roof or whatnot.


----------



## CloudAtlas (Oct 29, 2013)

Daviator00 said:


> *I* *dumped* *cable* *as* *I* *was* *tired* *of* *paying* upwards of $250 a month. ...
> 
> *I* *envision* [*TiVo's*] *offices* to be a *handful* *of* *die*-*hards* *who* *are* *too* *scared* *or* *too* *stupid* to *find* *new* *jobs*. ...


But I bet they can afford cable! Am I right?! 

Seriously though, do you honestly believe that every TiVO user is having the same bad experience as you? Because they obviously aren't. I've no idea why your Bolt OTA started suddenly having problems. I do know that every product on Amazon has at least one 1 star review, from someone like you, complaining about how the product doesn't work correctly and not to buy.


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 7, 2016)

Has anyone who pre-ordered received a shipment notification yet? Someone here posted that the product page “clearly” stated that customers who pre-ordered would get them by Nov. 14. I don’t see that anywhere in the description, at least on the mobile app anyway. 

I’m in Hawaii, so I know that the usual Prime shipping rules don’t apply to me, but I would have expected to see my order at least moved to Shipping Soon status (or whatever they call it) by now.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Only if you have an exclusive use area outside AND you can see the southern sky from there. Otherwise, you're hosed. The HOA can block you from putting a dish on top of the roof or whatnot.


If it's a multi-unit building, the HOA can prevent roof access. If it's a single-family house with a neighborhood HOA, they can't stop you from putting it on your roof.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Saturn_V said:


> You may want to put in big bold letters *(WRITTEN BY TABLO.COM)* Read it for two minutes before I realized it was the Tablo blog.


Because it is a very even handed review. I thought they clearly explained the differences and similarities. Still undecided.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

swyman18 said:


> Has anyone who pre-ordered received a shipment notification yet? Someone here posted that the product page "clearly" stated that customers who pre-ordered would get them by Nov. 14. I don't see that anywhere in the description, at least on the mobile app anyway.
> 
> I'm in Hawaii, so I know that the usual Prime shipping rules don't apply to me, but I would have expected to see my order at least moved to Shipping Soon status (or whatever they call it) by now.


Obviously that statement wouldn't be on the product page now! They probably removed it 2 or 3 days before 14 November. I assure you it was (clearly) there when I posted about it earlier. It is Friday at 7:45 am Eastern time as I post this and they are promising Prime delivery by Monday (19 November).


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 7, 2016)

dlfl said:


> Obviously that statement wouldn't be on the product page now! They probably removed it 2 or 3 days before 14 November. I assure you it was (clearly) there when I posted about it earlier. It is Friday at 7:45 am Eastern time as I post this and they are promising Prime delivery by Monday (19 November).


Sorry, meant to say I didn't see it at the time, but yeah it may have been removed by the time I was looking.

My order says "Expected by 11/20" and I placed the pre-order on 9/21. We shall see.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

CNET says it will be on sale, starting Sunday, Nov. 18:
Fire TV Recast 500 GB: $180 ($50 off)
The 1TB version with four tuners will be marked down to $220, saving you about $60.

Amazon's Black Friday 2018 deals start now!

Nov 18th


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> If it's a multi-unit building, the HOA can prevent roof access. If it's a single-family house with a neighborhood HOA, they can't stop you from putting it on your roof.


*Iff* you own your own home. If it's a single-family condo, then I believe they can limit roof access, as the HOA owns the outside of the unit. We have very few single-family owned HOAs around here, but we do have some single-family condo buildings.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> *Iff* you own your own home. If it's a single-family condo, then I believe they can limit roof access, as the HOA owns the outside of the unit. We have very few single-family owned HOAs around here, but we do have some single-family condo buildings.


Yes, that's true if the HOA is responsible for the outside maintenance of the building/roof. I was thinking of neighborhood HOAs where you own the house and are responsible for the roof maintenance, but the HOA still tells you that you can't do anything outside of the house that they think looks ugly, like putting up an antenna or satellite dish. In that case, you can legally put one on the roof despite their objections.

On a somewhat related topic, my ex-girlfriend who was living with her father in a neighborhood with a pesky HOA told them they had to take down the window AC unit in her bedroom window. The prescription medications she was taking at the time had the side effect of causing her to be hot all the time, so she needed the extra AC to be able to sleep. I successfully argued that federal laws like the American's With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act preempted their HOA ordinances against window AC units.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Yes, that's true if the HOA is responsible for the outside maintenance of the building/roof. I was thinking of neighborhood HOAs where you own the house and are responsible for the roof maintenance, but the HOA still tells you that you can't do anything outside of the house that they think looks ugly, like putting up a satellite dish. In that case, you can put one on the roof.


There is a law that prevents HOAs in single family home neighborhoods from prohibiting satellite dishes or antennas to a certain size, not sure of the precise details.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Bigg said:


> I actually read through the entire thing, and found it to be almost an entirely fair comparison of the two platforms.





wizwor said:


> Because it is a very even handed review. I thought they clearly explained the differences and similarities. Still undecided.


I have a very sensitive bias/vested interest meter. There's a Channels app developer that's flamed the Recast on Twitter from the *first* day of release. Is it honest technical opinion? Or is it stealth marketing, damning with faint praise a competing product while being tied to another?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> On a somewhat related topic, my ex-girlfriend who was living with her father in a neighborhood with a pesky HOA told them they had to take down the window AC unit in her bedroom window. The prescription medications she was taking at the time had the side effect of causing her to be hot all the time, so she needed the extra AC to be able to sleep. I successfully argued that federal laws like the American's With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act preempted their HOA ordinances against window AC units.


What is wrong with an HOA that they're so invasive and have nothing better to do than regulate where people's air conditioners go?



Saturn_V said:


> I have a very sensitive bias/vested interest meter. There's a Channels app developer that's flamed the Recast on Twitter from the *first* day of release. Is it honest technical opinion? Or is it stealth marketing, damning with faint praise a competing product while being tied to another?


It sounds like someone who just doesn't like competition, or has an axe to grind with Amazon, but it could be a form of stealth marketing.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Bigg said:


> What is wrong with an HOA that they're so invasive and have nothing better to do than regulate where people's air conditioners go?
> 
> It sounds like someone who just doesn't like competition, or has an axe to grind with Amazon, but it could be a form of stealth marketing.


HOAs tend to be ran by retirees who have nothing better to do.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

smark said:


> HOAs tend to be ran by retirees who have nothing better to do.


Well, that's not fair. People who live in communities with HOAs pay a premium for the neighborhood. It's a good idea to read the rules before buying and abide them once you sign the agreement. Or move.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

wizwor said:


> Well, that's not fair. People who live in communities with HOAs pay a premium for the neighborhood. It's a good idea to read the rules before buying and abide them once you sign the agreement. Or move.


If their rules conform with the law, sure. If their rules violate the law, no.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> What is wrong with an HOA that they're so invasive and have nothing better to do than regulate where people's air conditioners go?


I think it can be a noise (esp. in a neighborhood with houses right next to each other) as well as beauty (no iron or plastic boxes hanging out of windows) issue.


wizwor said:


> Well, that's not fair. People who live in communities with HOAs pay a premium for the neighborhood. It's a good idea to read the rules before buying and abide them once you sign the agreement. Or move.


But it can be difficult to be HOA-less--in my area, 90% of the homes, in the various, distinct neighborhoods, are HOA-controlled. And one's circumstances and needs can change over time. Also, one may just not realize things before moving in (not that that's an excuse, but it's real). And it may not be economically possible to move or, at least, it can be difficult and expensive.

And to be fair, many of the rules can be strict to the extreme--not just the color of one's house, but, e.g., the exact size of wood planks in fencing (be off by 1/8" and have to replace them--yes, something like that happened to a neighbor, when the specified size could no longer be found), the precise height of bushes, etc. In my neighborhood, it seems that only a small number of people care, at least to the extremes, and otherwise people just want to be reasonable--but the small minority controls, and it's near impossible to get rules that were set, decades ago, changed.
​


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

HOA's can be like Co-op boards in New York .


----------



## 19972000muskrat (Jan 2, 2008)

Amazon Fire TV Recast review: This over-the-air DVR is frustratingly close to great

"Over-the-air DVR was once the domain of geeks whose living rooms ran on Windows Media Center. "

Seems Microsoft got out of the business at the worst possible time. WMC would probably still work better than Amazon Fire TV Recast if only they would have maintained it.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

19972000muskrat said:


> Amazon Fire TV Recast review: This over-the-air DVR is frustratingly close to great
> 
> "Over-the-air DVR was once the domain of geeks whose living rooms ran on Windows Media Center. "
> 
> Seems Microsoft got out of the business at the worst possible time. WMC would probably still work better than Amazon Fire TV Recast if only they would have maintained it.


For a first release that device sure sounds like it has a lot of potential. What a great start and with Amazon's mega $$$ behind it everyone will hear about it. I'm betting at some point they will throw in their cheapest Fire Stick as part of the bundle. I wonder if TiVo could put their DVR on a "stick" like device so you wouldn't need the big curved box?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Well, that's not fair. People who live in communities with HOAs pay a premium for the neighborhood. It's a good idea to read the rules before buying and abide them once you sign the agreement. Or move.


Yeah, and that's why HOAs suck. A lot of the rules are idiotic. Like no dishes on the roof, or you can't paint your house this color or you can only have one pet or stupid crap like that. That's why I like individual single family homes (which around here don't have HOAs) so that the only people who can tell me what to do are the city/town, which are elected officials, and they are at least theoretically accountable.



Mikeguy said:


> I think it can be a noise (esp. in a neighborhood with houses right next to each other) as well as beauty (no iron or plastic boxes hanging out of windows) issue.


So people should just sweat their butts off because they have no A/C? That's nuts. Even the condos around here with HOAs that don't have central air all have window ACs hanging out.



> But it can be difficult to be HOA-less--in my area, 90% of the homes, in the various, distinct neighborhoods, are HOA-controlled.


Wow, that sucks.



> And to be fair, many of the rules can be strict to the extreme--not just the color of one's house, but, e.g., the exact size of wood planks in fencing (be off by 1/8" and have to replace them--yes, something like that happened to a neighbor, when the specified size could no longer be found), the precise height of bushes, etc. In my neighborhood, it seems that only a small number of people care, at least to the extremes, and otherwise people just want to be reasonable--but the small minority controls, and it's near impossible to get rules that were set, decades ago, changed.


That's nuts. Around here, you can pretty much put whatever fence in you want. The neighborhood my parents are in has deed restrictions, but once the original developer left, they became effectively unenforceable, and several houses have broken them anyway. One of them involves satellite dishes, but since they are owned SFUs, it practically only limits C-band dishes which are basically dead anyway since OTARD protects everything up to 1m.



19972000muskrat said:


> Seems Microsoft got out of the business at the worst possible time. WMC would probably still work better than Amazon Fire TV Recast if only they would have maintained it.


I thought the HTPC was a great idea, but then streaming boxes went to $300. And then $100. And then $50. And now like $25 or something, and the HTPC is practically dead except for a small number of enthusiasts. I have one, but I rarely use it, and when I do, it's usually a Plex server for my Roku that's sitting 2' away since the Roku remote is way better than using a keyboard/mouse.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I have a friend who just moved to New Hampshire and is new to the OTA scene. He and I have been talking about DVRs and we looked hard are whole house solutions for him. We came away choosing the Tablo TV DVR and it wasn't even a difficult decision...

Tablo TV DVR vs Amazon Recast


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

AFTVNews has a Recast and has been doing some tests. Here is the poop on power consumption...

Amazon Fire TV Recast power usage while Idle, Recording, and Streaming


----------



## Albert (Sep 27, 2002)

I have a TiVo Roamio setup but the Recast is very interesting.

Because TiVo records the actual OTA signal and plays it back without re-compressing it, I assume the TiVo maintains superior quality when watching on remote TVs with TiVo Minis.... am I correct? And if so, how much quality is lost by the Recast re-compressing the stream?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

No setting of manual recordings with the Recast (I might have missed that in reading the 20 pp. above over time). 

I would be interested in hearing people's impressions of the picture quality with the Recast, using its wireless transmission (as well as, how well does the wireless transmission work--e.g. with a lesser-robust home wireless). Wireless always has been an Achilles heel for TiVo, for people without Ethernet/cable wiring in place where people want to extend their TiVo box capabilities with a Mini and watch. (The alternatives: using a wireless bridge or Powerline adapters, and seeing if they work/well.)


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Albert said:


> I have a TiVo Roamio setup but the Recast is very interesting.
> 
> Because TiVo records the actual OTA signal and plays it back without re-compressing it, I assume the TiVo maintains superior quality when watching on remote TVs with TiVo Minis.... am I correct? And if so, how much quality is lost by the Recast re-compressing the stream?


I think the Recast reduces all HD content to 720P when it transcodes it for playback.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

The deal on the Recast is live now..$179/500GB; $219/1TB

Said I'd wait six months... so much for that plan.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

wizwor said:


> I have a friend who just moved to New Hampshire and is new to the OTA scene. He and I have been talking about DVRs and we looked hard are whole house solutions for him. We came away choosing the Tablo TV DVR and it wasn't even a difficult decision...
> 
> Tablo TV DVR vs Amazon Recast


Your friend apparently did not care about cost, as even the article linked said


> If you are not ready to throw $500 at a DVR, then get a Recast.


Also, the article said this about the Recast:


> Don't bother with the four tuner model because the box is not robust enough to support four tuners.


What does this mean and what is the evidence to support that statement?


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

dlfl said:


> What does ['Don't bother with the four tuner model because the box is not robust enough to support four tuners'] mean and what is the evidence to support that statement?


It means you are limited to two streams regardless of which model you purchase. Combined with the fact that you can only have one Recast per account (also from the ARF: _You can register one Fire TV Recast per Amazon account_), this is very limiting...

from Amazon's Recast FAQ...

_How many programs can I record at once? Can I record a program while watching another live or recorded program?_
_
With a 2-tuner Fire TV Recast, you can either:_

_Record up to 2 programs at once,_
_Watch up to 1 live and 1 recorded program on different devices, while recording another;_
_Watch up to 2 recorded programs on different devices, while recording 2 programs in the background; OR_
_Watch up to 2 live programs on different devices at once._
_With a 4-tuner Fire TV Recast, you can either:_

_Record up to 4 programs at once;_
_Watch up to 1 live and 1 recorded program on different devices, while recording up to 3 other programs in the background;_
_Watch up to 2 recorded programs on different devices, while recording up to 4 programs in the background; OR_
_Watch up to 2 live programs on different devices at once while recording up to 2 other programs in the background._
from the Tablo Blog Post...

_On-the-fly transcoding requires A LOT of processing power, so every Recast device is limited to 2 concurrent viewing streams, regardless of whether you have a 2 or 4-tuner model_


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

If this follows in the footsteps of Tivo we should be seeing Internet postings..My Recast seems noisy....My recast seems like it running very warm...I have two recasts that don't see each other..And so on....


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

tenthplanet said:


> If this follows in the footsteps of Tivo we should be seeing Internet postings..My Recast seems noisy....My recast seems like it running very warm...I have two recasts that don't see each other..And so on....


Most likely right in the Amazon reviews, but Amazon has better support than TiVo so people tend to go there for help rather than 'the Internet'. At the same time, AFTVNews is a very credible resource and Elias Saba is already providing first hand analysis.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wizwor said:


> It means you are limited to two streams regardless of which model you purchase. Combined with the fact that you can only have one Recast per account (also from the ARF: _You can register one Fire TV Recast per Amazon account_), *this is very limiting*...


Well, it's limiting to a family of more than 2 people using the device for television watching at the same time. For a single-person or couple household, it's not really that limiting at all (unless you want to record more than 4 shows at the same time).

I don't understand Amazon's limit on the number of Recasts that can be registered per Amazon account. Why would Amazon restrict sales like that? I guess the workaround is, simply have another account. 


wizwor said:


> Most likely right in the Amazon reviews, *but Amazon has better support than TiVo *so people tend to go there for help rather than 'the Internet'. At the same time, AFTVNews is a very credible resource and Elias Saba is already providing first hand analysis.


For _technical _support? (I've never had an Amazon tech. product, and so don't know.)


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

wizwor said:


> It means you are limited to two streams regardless of which model you purchase. Combined with the fact that you can only have one Recast per account (also from the ARF: _You can register one Fire TV Recast per Amazon account_), this is very limiting...
> 
> from Amazon's Recast FAQ...
> 
> ...


Yes anyone paying attention at all knows all that. The quote in question said the Recast was "not robust enough to support four _tuners_". What you have quoted doesn't show that at all. It should have said "not robust enough to support four _playbacks_" and that would not have raised my question. Tests on AFTVnews.com have shown the recast easily records from four tuners (actually is recording buffers from all four tuners anyway) and that is an obviously valuable feature even if playback is limited to two streams.

The limitation to one Recast per account does seem puzzling and I hope Amazon will soon remove that. Even better would be if they designed a model that could support the transcoding load for four playback streams. However I would really be curious as to what percentage of potential users need more than 2 playback streams. Maybe Amazon did some market research on that and decided the sales/cost ratio favored 2 streams.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

dlfl said:


> Yes anyone paying attention at all knows all that. The quote in question said the Recast was "not robust enough to support four _tuners_". What you have quoted doesn't show that at all. It should have said "not robust enough to support four _playbacks_" and that would not have raised my question. Tests on AFTVnews.com have shown the recast easily records from four tuners (actually is recording buffers from all four tuners anyway) and that is an obviously valuable feature even if playback is limited to two streams.
> 
> The limitation to one Recast per account does seem puzzling and I hope Amazon will soon remove that. Even better would be if they designed a model that could support the transcoding load for four playback streams. However I would really be curious as to what percentage of potential users need more than 2 playback streams. Maybe Amazon did some market research on that and decided the sales/cost ratio favored 2 streams.


then, by all means, buy one. i heard they are on sale.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Mikeguy said:


> Well, it's limiting to a family of more than 2 people using the device for television watching at the same time. For a single-person or couple household, it's not really that limiting at all (unless you want to record more than 4 shows at the same time).
> 
> I don't understand Amazon's limit on the number of Recasts that can be registered per Amazon account. Why would Amazon restrict sales like that? I guess the workaround is, simply have another account.
> 
> For _technical _support? (I've never had an Amazon tech. product, and so don't know.)


Yes. I bought a pair of Shows at Bed, Bath, and Beyond and was having problems getting one set up. Worked through a script with their support folks and Amazon shipped me a replacement and a return label. Also, the Q&A section of products is very helpful.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I've just been perusing reviews of the Recast and I find one thing troublingly amused: a pattern in the omission of any mention of TiVo, or only a glancing mention at best (with the exception of one review I read). It's as if TiVo doesn't exist and isn't a competitor and a standard to be measured against, and as if the past 19-1/2+ years of TiVo operating in this area and helping cement it never occurred. 

Many nice aspects of the Recast--I am intrigued by its total wireless operation (no need to retrofit an unwired house with Ethernet or cable for MoCA, if one is looking for multi-room, unified use). But then, the reviews seem to ignore TiVo features that many users rely on and that are absent in the Recast (and other DVRs): commercial skip, QuickMode playing, the peanut remote (miles above "standard" remote), etc.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

wizwor said:


> then, by all means, buy one. i heard they are on sale.


Thanks! I was just waiting for your approval. 

Much as I am intrigued by the Recast (and a big user/fan of Amazon in general), I can't justify buying one -- yet. If I decided to cut the cord, I would just reconfigure my TiVo 4-tuner for OTA. If that proved unsatisfactory, or the TiVo failed, I probably would go with the Recast, cut the cord, and get Playstation Vue. I won't be buying another TiVo, however. Overpriced and under-supported, plus it would be really nice not to have to deal with a TA.


----------



## desiboy (Oct 3, 2007)

On Black Friday sale on Amazon - $50 - 60 less than retail. I got 1 TB for $220 this morning.

Why? TiVo’s app issues over the last few weeks has left me at times with nothing to watch when I excercise. This will be my backup. Great for all late night shows, news etc.


----------



## Albert (Sep 27, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> I think the Recast reduces all HD content to 720P when it transcodes it for playback.


I think I read that too.... so there should be no doubt that TiVo (w/TiVo Minis) maintains broadcast quality and Recast reduces it? It's too bad that it seems that Recast must re-compress. I think they should have made it so that there's an option for no re-compression when your device and network connection can support it.


----------



## Rob75 (Nov 24, 2017)

Albert said:


> I think I read that too.... so there should be no doubt that TiVo (w/TiVo Minis) maintains broadcast quality and Recast reduces it? It's too bad that it seems that Recast must re-compress. I think they should have made it so that there's an option for no re-compression when your device and network connection can support it.


I'd really like to see a side-by-side matrix of Tivo, Tablo and Recast and what each does with the broadcast quality. If Tivo is superior in those respects I don't ever recall seeing that in their marketing material. If anyone knows where to find that please post a link.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

dlfl said:


> Thanks! I was just waiting for your approval.
> 
> Much as I am intrigued by the Recast (and a big user/fan of Amazon in general), I can't justify buying one -- yet. If I decided to cut the cord, I would just reconfigure my TiVo 4-tuner for OTA. If that proved unsatisfactory, or the TiVo failed, I probably would go with the Recast, cut the cord, and get Playstation Vue. I won't be buying another TiVo, however. Overpriced and under-supported, plus it would be really nice not to have to deal with a TA.


That's really the whole point -- the reason why this has gone 21 pages in a TiVo forum. Set top DVRs are empirically superior to whole house options -- except when they aren't. TiVo has both and it's whole house performance is without peer.

I am at the other end of the spectrum with TiVi. When I started looking at TiVos, the Lifetime options cost around $800. I bought my first three OTAs at $299.99. I bought two more at $199.99. I am definitely not in the market for one even at those prices. Support has been horrible since day one for me. I have learned to solve most problems myself.

I have a pair of Extends and Plex Pass and seven Amazon Echo Shows. I would like to watch live television on the Shows or even have an easier way to watch recordings than opening firefox and typing in the url plex.tv every time. That is why I am interested in the Recast. I'm simply not loving this thing.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

So, I got the 1tb/4tuner Recast delivered Friday (11/16).

Setup was super easy and I barely had to play around with the antenna. Only one channel had an issue and a little moving around fixed it. Two days later the channels feel solid with no breakup. I picked up about 90 channels (lots of ones I don't want, but 90 is 90). None with issues. I think I'm 25 - 30 miles from the transmission towers. I use a flat square antenna on a small stand with amp that I got from Amazon a while ago for $23.

Compared to my TiVo Bolt, it's far superior in picking up and holding stations. The channel mentioned above was always an issue with the bolt. I had to spend LOTS of time to try to get it in, but it would still have breakup in the signal. Or it would not last all day. This plus a couple other channels would bounce around and I would get breakup in the signal during the day mostly. With the TiVo I would get all the channels after an hour plus of fiddling with the antenna, then the next day a few of the channels would have breakup and unwatchable.. more hours playing with the antenna.

I tested streaming to my iPhone while I was out at different locations. It worked perfect for me. 

I'm happy with the picture quality streaming from the recast to my fire tv hooked up to my projector. 

I do think there are a few improvements to be made to the Amazon dvr/tv controls, but they are currently easy to use as it is and I do expect them to improve it over time. This is only their first software release for it (one update when I set it up).


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Albert said:


> I think I read that too.... so there should be no doubt that TiVo (w/TiVo Minis) maintains broadcast quality and Recast reduces it? It's too bad that it seems that Recast must re-compress. I think they should have made it so that there's an option for no re-compression when your device and network connection can support it.





Albert said:


> I think I read that too.... so there should be no doubt that TiVo (w/TiVo Minis) maintains broadcast quality and Recast reduces it? It's too bad that it seems that Recast must re-compress. I think they should have made it so that there's an option for no re-compression when your device and network connection can support it.


Right, but it's not really an apple to apple comparison because you need wired internet connections for all locations and the minis cost roughly 3x as much as a 4K fire tv stick and have a limited selection of apps and apps with reduced functionaliy.

On the other hand, the first TV doesn't even require a mini. So if you're only using 1 TV you can get by with just the Tivo, but you're still stuck with the substandard apps.

There isn't an app for the Tivo on the fire tv yet, but it's supposed to be coming next year. It will be interesting to compare the viewing experience between the Tivo and the Recast with streaming enabled for both of them to a fire tv. I think Tivo transcoding supports up to 1080P.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Right, but it's not really an apple to apple comparison *because you need wired internet connections for all locations *and the minis cost roughly 3x as much as a 4K fire tv stick and have a limited selection of apps and apps with reduced functionaliy.
> 
> On the other hand, the first TV doesn't even require a mini. So if you're only using 1 TV you can get by with just the Tivo, but you're still stuck with the substandard apps.
> 
> There isn't an app for the Tivo on the fire tv yet, but it's supposed to be coming next year. It will be interesting to compare the viewing experience between the Tivo and the Recast with streaming enabled for both of them to a fire tv. I think Tivo transcoding supports up to 1080P.


Well,_ some_ people do.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

@NJChris How's the scrubbing (or seeking, navigation, FFWD, RWND, etc.) via your Fire TV? Comments by competing DVR's have cast doubt on that because the Recast transcodes on the fly while playing back.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> I have a friend who just moved to New Hampshire and is new to the OTA scene. He and I have been talking about DVRs and we looked hard are whole house solutions for him. We came away choosing the Tablo TV DVR and it wasn't even a difficult decision...


Does he get any reception? New Hampshire is a rough area for OTA.



dlfl said:


> Overpriced and under-supported, plus it would be really nice not to have to deal with a TA.


Cutting the cord with TiVo also fixes the TA issue. 



Albert said:


> I think I read that too.... so there should be no doubt that TiVo (w/TiVo Minis) maintains broadcast quality and Recast reduces it? It's too bad that it seems that Recast must re-compress. I think they should have made it so that there's an option for no re-compression when your device and network connection can support it.


There are some issues with MPEG-2 streaming/playback, but at least they could have offered to transcode to 1080p60 for a very minimal loss of quality. Downgrading to 720p is a HUGE jump for 1080i broadcasts as evidenced by Comcast's downgrading of all 1080i cable content to 720p.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Does he get any reception? New Hampshire is a rough area for OTA.


Boston, Manchester, and Portland. 68 channels, I believe.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

dlfl said:


> @NJChris How's the scrubbing (or seeking, navigation, FFWD, RWND, etc.) via your Fire TV? Comments by competing DVR's have cast doubt on that because the Recast transcodes on the fly while playing back.


I use the 30 second skip and 10 sec rewind mostly. There is a slight delay but it's not been annoying to me. The fast forward and rewind show the video moving faster. It looks to work fine and there hasn't been any issue of pausing there. Scrubbing on the phone app just lets you slide to whatever time you want, it doesn't show a preview unfortunately.


----------



## Rob75 (Nov 24, 2017)

So according to this link the Tablo allows to select your recording quality.
https://www.tablotv.com/blog/tablo-dvr-live-tv-recording-quality-settings/

@NJChris - Do you know if the Recast is set to 720p max with no option to change? Accordingly to this link there are recording options, but Ive read a bunch of posts about just 720p. 
Amazon.com Help: Fire TV Recast FAQs


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Rob75 said:


> So according to this link the Tablo allows to select your recording quality.
> https://www.tablotv.com/blog/tablo-dvr-live-tv-recording-quality-settings/
> 
> @NJChris - The Recast is set to 720p max with no option to change?? Am I understanding that correctly?


Recast records at full quality. It plays back at 720p max.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

mdavej said:


> Recast records at full quality. It plays back at 720p max.


Well..., that's just F-ed up.


----------



## Rob75 (Nov 24, 2017)

mdavej said:


> Recast records at full quality. It plays back at 720p max.


Well that's reason enough not to buy it. If I were Tivos marketing I would have that plastered all over the web site. Any idea what the Tablo products stream at?


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Rob75 said:


> Well that's reason enough not to buy it. If I were Tivos marketing I would have that plastered all over the web site. Any idea what the Tablo products stream at?


1080p. But Tablo is significantly more expensive than Recast and possibly even Tivo when you include lifetime plus external storage. Tablo has been around for a long time, but I've never really considered them due to cost, and still don't. They're not even on my radar.

Keep in mind that on small screens (32" or less), you can't see any difference between 720p and 1080i at normal viewing distances, and that ABC and FOX broadcast in 720p natively.

I'll be keeping my Tivos for a while longer. But Recast is a great option for my elderly parents who don't care are couldn't even see the difference between 720p and 1080i.

My $100 dual tuner Stream+ is slowly improving. I can run all the OTT apps I want on it, and it now has a 14-day guide as of an update a few days ago. It's almost good enough to replace my Tivo, at least in a single room installation.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

Rob75 said:


> So according to this link the Tablo allows to select your recording quality.
> https://www.tablotv.com/blog/tablo-dvr-live-tv-recording-quality-settings/
> 
> @NJChris - Do you know if the Recast is set to 720p max with no option to change? Accordingly to this link there are recording options, but Ive read a bunch of posts about just 720p.
> Amazon.com Help: Fire TV Recast FAQs


There is no option to change the resolution (other than saying if you prefer HD, only HD or Only SD for the series recording options, but that's based on the channel's resolution).

If it's stored on the recast at broadcast quality, but streamed to the firetv at 720p, I suppose it's possible this could change down the road and they picked that to have it work consistently on all combinations in it's early release stages.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

Also here is an article on how it works (sorry if I missed if it was posted). It records as mpeg-2 and plays back at 720p due to some of their devices unable to decode 1080i? Which means they could change this or add an option later.
Video recording, storage, and playback details for the Amazon Fire TV Recast


----------



## naranja (Jan 7, 2005)

I see that you can do remote viewing on android and apple devices but not clear if I can use a fire stick at a remote location to watch and control the Recast. Can anybody confirm? Thanks


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mdavej said:


> Keep in mind that on small screens (32" or less), you can't see any difference between 720p and 1080i at normal viewing distances, and that ABC and FOX broadcast in 720p natively.


PBS is reason enough to demand 1080i/p. A lot of their content really benefits from having more than double the resolution.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Reviews by buyers are now viewable on Amazon. Many of the complaints seem to be about the android/iphone APP not having all the functions that are available when using a FireTV. Amazon also has a fairly long FAQ.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

naranja said:


> I see that you can do remote viewing on android and apple devices but not clear if I can use a fire stick at a remote location to watch and control the Recast. Can anybody confirm? Thanks


No, you cannot


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mdavej said:


> Recast records at full quality. It plays back at 720p max.





Joe3 said:


> Well..., that's just F-ed up.





Rob75 said:


> Well that's reason enough not to buy it. If I were Tivos marketing I would have that plastered all over the web site. .................


LOL basing an overall comparison of and/or purchase decision for Recast vs. Tablo or Channels DVR or TiVo on this single number is absurdly simplistic. The details that should be considered, in addition to each users particular requirements, have been linked and discussed extensively earlier in this thread.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

The review over at TechHive states:

_Amazon says it considered offering raw 1080i video as an option, but decided against it due to bandwidth issues. Videophiles and users with speedy home Wi-Fi might wish the company would reconsider._​I want to say that I did read somewhere that Amazon told the reviewer that they might offer 1080i playback in the future if the playback device and the connection both supported it. We'll see. I'm sure future software updates will improve the user experience in various small ways.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> The review over at TechHive states:
> 
> _Amazon says it considered offering raw 1080i video as an option, but decided against it due to bandwidth issues. Videophiles and users with speedy home Wi-Fi might wish the company would reconsider._​I want to say that I did read somewhere that Amazon told the reviewer that they might offer 1080i playback in the future if the playback device and the connection both supported it. We'll see. I'm sure future software updates will improve the user experience in various small ways.


And it's only a 19.2 Mb/s video, at the max. Most cities it might be half that bitrate. I could run an old access point from ten years ago and still have zero issues streaming an OTA video at the max bitrate.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I want to say that I did read somewhere that Amazon told the reviewer that they might offer 1080i playback in the future if the playback device and the connection both supported it. We'll see. I'm sure future software updates will improve the user experience in various small ways.


I'm hoping that six months down the road, they'll make 1080i (both for live and recordings) available to at least the FireTV clients and other STBs that can do MPEG2 like the Nvidia Shield.

Living with transcoded OTA/DVR recordings isn't horrible. My HD HomeRun Extend (transcoder) does a better job with live Football than the live-streamed football games over Prime. Just wish it had the X-Ray stats.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Saturn_V said:


> I'm hoping that six months down the road, they'll make 1080i (both for live and recordings) available to at least the FireTV clients and other STBs that can do MPEG2 like the Nvidia Shield.


I'll be a little surprised if Amazon opens up the Recast to work with non-Fire TV clients at all but it's possible. In that case, I suppose TV from the Recast would be accessed inside their Prime Video app (which is supposedly getting a major revamp soon).


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

1080 i has motion issues why is why 720p exists. 1080p is a solution but a resource hog. A good 720p stream can look better than 1080 i. Don't fall in the resolution trap. TV's make a difference also.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I have to wonder if those bashing the Recast for 720p max have availed themselves of the information provided by Tablo in this web page (which has been linked earlier):
https://www.tablotv.com/blog/choosing-right-tablo-recording-quality/
For example:


> HD 1080 - 10 Mbps, [email protected] - _For hardwired networks and state-of-the-art viewing devices
> Bandwidth requirements: 10 Mbps
> Drive space requirements: 4.6 GB/hour of recording
> _
> ...


and:


> As you can see, there are five recording quality options for Tablo. For most Tablo users, 1080i is too big, 480p lacks picture quality, while 720p is JUST RIGHT!


Assuming that 1080i is generally superior to 720p based on simply 1080-is-greater-than-720 is too simplistic.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

AFAIK, we have only one forum user who has posted actual hands-on experience with the Recast (and thanks, @NJChris ). I guess this isn't surprising since this is a TiVo forum. Does anyone know of another forum where user experiences are being posted?


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

dlfl said:


> AFAIK, we have only one forum user who has posted actual hands-on experience with the Recast (and thanks, @NJChris ). I guess this isn't surprising since this is a TiVo forum. Does anyone know of another forum where user experiences are being posted?


Fire TV Recast, over-the-air DVR - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JoeKustra said:


> Fire TV Recast, over-the-air DVR - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews


Thanks. So far there is almost nothing bearing on 1080-vs-720 PQ on that thread. However (similar to what happened here on TCF) there is a pre-release AVS thread that is longer and has more info:
Amazon RECAST OTA DVR formerly known as "Frank" - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
That thread has several comments that the Recast PQ for 1080i signals is noticeably less sharp (compared to direct antenna reception on a TV), at least on larger (e.g. 65") TV's.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Unfortunately, in many cases, whether a given setup (Recast or whatever) satisfies ones needs can only be determined by actually running (after already paying for) that setup.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

That's true in the end, but I find user reviews of tech. imminently helpful in determining if a piece of tech. gets into the range of my wheelhouse to begin with, and passes an initial "go."


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> 1080 i has motion issues why is why 720p exists. 1080p is a solution but a resource hog. A good 720p stream can look better than 1080 i. Don't fall in the resolution trap. TV's make a difference also.


1080i only has motion issues if you have a crap quality deinterlacer. I've watched both with a good quality deinterlacer in my video processor, and it's very clear to me that 1080i just looks better. Period. The only reason people still argue about this is that if you're using a crap quality TV with a crap quality deinterlacer, then 1080i looks like crap, and 720p might look better.

But when you get a big screen where you're sitting close enough to benefit from the higher resolution and you have a good deinterlacer, 1080i is simply a superior format. And of course, some 1080i channels do a crappy job with VQ anyway, while the FOXs and ESPNs of the world push 720p to it's limit with a really good 720p feed, but even a decent 1080i feed will look better than a great 720p feed, and a really good 1080i feed will blow even the very best 720p feeds out of the water.



dlfl said:


> Assuming that 1080i is generally superior to 720p based on simply 1080-is-greater-than-720 is too simplistic.


The difference is obvious if you have a large enough screen and you're close enough to it. The drop to 720p is noticeable where there is a lot of detail on the screen, and if there isn't much detail, then there is no downside to 1080i as long as you have a good deinterlacer. All channels should use 1080i over 720p, it is the technically superior format.


----------



## eherberg (Feb 17, 2011)

dlfl said:


> Assuming that 1080i is generally superior to 720p based on simply 1080-is-greater-than-720 is too simplistic.


The good news is that with future implementation of ATSC 3.0, interlaced video will likely be a thing of the past in the future. All current test markets are doing 1080p HDR - with no interlaced video to be found. Progressive signals for progressive displays. No more 50% frames or dealing with de-interlacing issues on our progressive sets.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

eherberg said:


> The good news is that with future implementation of ATSC 3.0, interlaced video will likely be a thing of the past in the future. All current test markets are doing 1080p HDR - with no interlaced video to be found. Progressive signals for progressive displays. No more 50% frames or dealing with de-interlacing issues on our progressive sets.


That's good that we can finally get to 1080 resolution across the board with ATSC 3.0, but i vs p really just doesn't matter. I can tell the difference, but I literally have to stare at a basketball on a cross-court shot to see the interlacing artifacts, they just aren't noticeable for normal day to day viewing.


----------



## minidanas (Jul 23, 2008)

From what I've heard so far, Recast doesn't seem to have instant (8 second) replay and slow motion/frame-by-frame. Those are definitely dealbreakers for me.

What about smoothness of FF/rewind? One of the things I like about tivo is that I can FF with precision, and it starts FF-ing as soon as I hit the button, and it will start playing as soon as I hit PLAY. Everything else I've seen, there is annoying delay/buffering/processing, and you end up overshooting or undershooting your destination position. How is Recast in that regard?


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

It does have 10 sec instant replay. Press FFWD to skip 30 sec, hold to ffwd low speed, press again for middle speed, again for high speed.

During ffwd, shows thumbnail frames and min:sec. Playback starts immediately except for skips. Those buffer for about half a second.

There is no frame by frame slow-mo, but you could pause/play over and over to approximate it.


----------



## minidanas (Jul 23, 2008)

Thank you! That makes it better. So playback control works somewhat like Prime video on Fire TV, and I like that. I'm hoping their next model will have slow-mo and transfer to and from PC, because I am done with tivo after the Hydra fiasco. I stuck with tivo for so long after they disappointed me again and again. All because they had a few things nobody else had.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

minidanas said:


> Thank you! That makes it better. So playback control works somewhat like Prime video on Fire TV, and I like that. I'm hoping their next model will have slow-mo and transfer to and from PC, because I am done with tivo after the Hydra fiasco. I stuck with tivo for so long after they disappointed me again and again. All because they had a few things nobody else had.


One thing that TiVo also has: the ability to go back to the earlier UI, TE3, from Hydra/TE4.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

A new article by Zatz. Looks like there will be more functionality coming down the road.

Hacking Amazon Fire TV Recast DVR - Zatz Not Funny!


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

I just replaced a Roamio Basic (used only for OTA) and Mini in one household with a Recast and 2 Fire sticks. While you do lose some DVR functionality compared to Tivo, the benefit of having OTT apps on the same device as well as being able to put everything on wifi makes the switch a no-brainer for me. No complaints so far. I'll be doing the same when I get my 2nd Recast and more Fire Sticks in a few days, which had another price drop today - 2 4k sticks for $60.

I didn't have a VOX remote with my Tivo systems to compare to, but I find Alexa works quite well with Recast and other apps and makes getting around quick and easy.

Will probably sell one Tivo system but keep the other just in case I ever consider going back to cable. But for now, as soon as I finish watching all my Tivo recordings over the next several months I'll be done with Tivo. 

It's been a great ride, but they've just moved too slowly in terms of integrating streaming for cord cutters like me. For example, Sling TV has been around nearly 4 years, yet Tivo still doesn't have a single OTT app on their platform and apparently no plans to add any. Simply adding a Tivo app to a streaming device would also solve the problem. But instead of improving the Fire TV app they already had, they chose to remove it entirely. Their new app seems to be vaporware at this point.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mdavej said:


> It's been a great ride, but they've just moved too slowly in terms of integrating streaming for cord cutters like me.


I'm sticking with TiVo in my cord-cutting world, although I have all the streaming apps turned off and use a Roku for that. You are 100% right though about TiVo being too slow to respond to the market. They continually come in with too little, too late, and while they used to lead the market in the DVR age, they now lag the market in the cord cutting age. They just can't seem to keep up with the rapid pace of innovation and change in this space.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I'm sticking with TiVo in my cord-cutting world, although I have all the streaming apps turned off and use a Roku for that. You are 100% right though about TiVo being too slow to respond to the market. They continually come in with too little, too late, and while they used to lead the market in the DVR age, they now lag the market in the cord cutting age. They just can't seem to keep up with the rapid pace of innovation and change in this space.


There is no perfect solution: everyone makes their own decision about what compromise to make. My single biggest issue with TiVo for cord-cutting was, as you say, you really have to use a separate streaming solution (Roku/FireTV). And this is made more painful since TiVo does not currently support CEC.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> There is no perfect solution: everyone makes their own decision about what compromise to make. My single biggest issue with TiVo for cord-cutting was, as you say, you really have to use a separate streaming solution (Roku/FireTV). And this is made more painful since TiVo does not currently support CEC.


I wouldn't call grabbing the AVR remote and punching one button to switch inputs to be "painful", but it's definitely not as slick as it could be. I'm working on streamlining my entire setup with a 4k capable AVR so that I can have one main switch for my main HDMI sources, not multiple levels of switches for various sources. I do use Roku and TiVo a lot more than my UHD BD player, but the UHD BD player still requires me to grab the AVR remote and switch over to that as well.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I wouldn't call grabbing the AVR remote and punching one button to switch inputs to be "painful", but it's definitely not as slick as it could be. I'm working on streamlining my entire setup with a 4k capable AVR so that I can have one main switch for my main HDMI sources, not multiple levels of switches for various sources. I do use Roku and TiVo a lot more than my UHD BD player, but the UHD BD player still requires me to grab the AVR remote and switch over to that as well.


How many remotes do you have?


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 7, 2016)

So, one of the things that I thought I read somewhere, was something to this effect:

“If watching via a FireTV device, in some cases the Recast may switch to a direct one-to-one WiFi connection bypassing your home network if it determines it will result in better performance.”

I wonder if there is any way to determine if/when it’s actually doing that?

I understand that most users won’t care as long as it works. But personally, I like to know exactly what it’s doing to communicate with with my FireTV.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> How many remotes do you have?


I think I was up to 10 at one point. I bought some Logitech Harmonys on clearance at Wal-Mart a few months ago, I'm going to set one of those up for my main devices at some point.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I think I was up to 10 at one point. I bought some Logitech Harmonys on clearance at Wal-Mart a few months ago, I'm going to set one of those up for my main devices at some point.


Lol! That's sort of what I mean by pain. Especially for my wife and kids who seem unable to adapt to a multi-remote system. I thought of trying the Harmony, but they really like the TiVo peanut remote. We'll see how they get on with the Recast and Fire TV remote


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> Lol! That's sort of what I mean by pain. Especially for my wife and kids who seem unable to adapt to a multi-remote system. I thought of trying the Harmony, but they really like the TiVo peanut remote. We'll see how they get on with the Recast and Fire TV remote


At one point, I had printed a wiring diagram of my system so that people could figure out how to route a source that was multiple switches deep. However, there's no good way around the complexity, other than universal remotes, as no single device will do it all. I'd say I spend 90% of my viewing time between Roku and TiVo, but there's still the other 10% of the time.

At one point, I had a video processor which was the center of the system, it was feeding audio to the AVR and video to the TV, but the AVR could also take audio from an aux input or the TV because my roommate, for some inexplicable reason put her Netflix account in the TV, and I wasn't going to pass up free Netflix (she's the brilliant but sometimes makes no sense type, she has a PhD now). The video processor had a TiVo, a Wii, and a pair of streaming devices connected to it directly, and an HDMI switch to handle more devices. The HDMI switch had two more streaming devices, two Xbox 360s, a Wii U, an HTPC a blu-ray player, and a composite adapter with another switch connected to it for the N64, GCN, and VCR. In a later setup in my own place, I had two TiVos for a while. I'm trying to streamline it a bit, but it's hard, as almost every device does something unique.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Scooby Doo said:


> Lol! That's sort of what I mean by pain. Especially for my wife and kids who seem unable to adapt to a multi-remote system. I thought of trying the Harmony, *but they really like the TiVo peanut remote*. We'll see how they get on with the Recast and Fire TV remote


That's me. I put up with the separate TV and soundbar and Blu-ray remotes, because most of my time is with the peanut, and because most remotes simply do not feel_ natural_. At this point, most of my remote work with the peanut is sight unseen--its keys just are in the right places the majority of the time, and it simply_ feels right._ I don't know if I could say that about any other remote.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

tenthplanet said:


> 1080 i has motion issues why is why 720p exists. 1080p is a solution but a resource hog. A good 720p stream can look better than 1080 i. Don't fall in the resolution trap. TV's make a difference also.


Apples to apples a good quality 720P feed is easily inferior to a good quality 1080i feed. And the differnece is very easy to see because there is much less detail in 720p. And if 1080i is deinterlaced properly, there should ge no issues. Altough a good quality 720P feed will be better than an inferior 1080i feed.


----------



## Edmund (Nov 8, 2002)

Scooby Doo said:


> Lol! That's sort of what I mean by pain. Especially for my wife and kids who seem unable to adapt to a multi-remote system. I thought of trying the Harmony, but they really like the TiVo peanut remote. We'll see how they get on with the Recast and Fire TV remote


How are they going to like the lack of 10 key pad to enter a channel # directly? Will they be happy channeling up & down to get to a certain channel?


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Scooby Doo said:


> My single biggest issue with TiVo for cord-cutting was, as you say, you really have to use a separate streaming solution (Roku/FireTV). And this is made more painful since TiVo does not currently support CEC.


They did just add CEC for TE4 (Hydra) with the latest update.

Scott


----------



## Intheswamp (Nov 15, 2017)

Sheesh, I'm on the fence on getting one of the Recasts. Last year I intended to give a Stream+ to my daughter's family, but then the "work in progress" appeared in the clouds regarding it. Not wanting to give them a technical erector set I shipped the Stream+ back. Then, I decided I'd bite the bullet and get them a Roamio OTA....within budget on a Black Friday sale. But, before BF got here this year Tivo had already killed off the Roamio OTA. Sure, they have the refurbs (this year's BF price is the same as I gave for my new one a year ago) but the one time I decided to get a refurb from them, a Mini, it got to me with fingerprints all over it and the HDMI port so scratched up it was easy to tell it had a *lot* of plug-action . So, no Tivo refurbs for me.

That brings us to the Recast and the discussion of 720 vs. 1080. I'm sure my daughter's (rural location) television is 1080p, but I'm not so sure whether they're actually using much 1080p. They feed their television with OTA and Roku. OTA is off-the-air so whatever the broadcasts come in...but I'm not sure what that is for the HD channels...720p?....1080p? I dunno. I'm guessing most broadcast HD content is 720p. But, that's an uneducated guess. As for the Roku, living on a low-speed Centurystink DSL Internet connection is normally in the 3Mbps range...so I'd figure 720p for that, also. With the Recast limited to a 720p limitation and knowing the content source is limited it seems that this would be a good match-up. But, I thought the Stream+ was gonna be the "golden ring", too.<sigh>

One thing that has me a bit "antsy" about the Recast. My Roamio OTA's WiFi is absolutely abysmal...it was like it was sitting in a thick metal toolbox or something while my old Blu-Ray player's WiFi never missed a beat. I ended up hard wiring my setup here at the house. Being as the Recast is "WiFi-only" I figure they used a good WiFi unit inside of it. Does the WiFi work good?

So, punch the button today? Wait for Elon Musk to come out with his version that will work in outer space or flooded caves?


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Edmund said:


> How are they going to like the lack of 10 key pad to enter a channel # directly? Will they be happy channeling up & down to get to a certain channel?


We will see. I have my Amazon and TiVo systems running in parallel at the moment but I have not yet tried the Amazon system on the rest of the family!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

The majority of OTA and cable channels are in 1080i. But in many if not most areas the OTA quality is nothing like it used to be. Since the bitrates are typically much lower now as they stuff more sub-channels in their available bandwidth.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

OTA is 60/40, as NBC, CBS, and PBS are 1080i, ABC and FOX are 720p. However, there are some oddball affiliate channels that convert their network's feed to the other format. Cable is about the same mix, 60/40 1080i/720p. It's unfortunate that the industry didn't standardize on 1080i, as it's a far superior format to 720p.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Intheswamp said:


> Sheesh, I'm on the fence on getting one of the Recasts. Last year I intended to give a Stream+ to my daughter's family, but then the "work in progress" appeared in the clouds regarding it. Not wanting to give them a technical erector set I shipped the Stream+ back. Then, I decided I'd bite the bullet and get them a Roamio OTA....within budget on a Black Friday sale. But, before BF got here this year Tivo had already killed off the Roamio OTA. Sure, they have the refurbs (this year's BF price is the same as I gave for my new one a year ago) but the one time I decided to get a refurb from them, a Mini, it got to me with fingerprints all over it and the HDMI port so scratched up it was easy to tell it had a *lot* of plug-action . So, no Tivo refurbs for me.
> 
> That brings us to the Recast and the discussion of 720 vs. 1080. I'm sure my daughter's (rural location) television is 1080p, but I'm not so sure whether they're actually using much 1080p. They feed their television with OTA and Roku. OTA is off-the-air so whatever the broadcasts come in...but I'm not sure what that is for the HD channels...720p?....1080p? I dunno. I'm guessing most broadcast HD content is 720p. But, that's an uneducated guess. As for the Roku, living on a low-speed Centurystink DSL Internet connection is normally in the 3Mbps range...so I'd figure 720p for that, also. With the Recast limited to a 720p limitation and knowing the content source is limited it seems that this would be a good match-up. But, I thought the Stream+ was gonna be the "golden ring", too.<sigh>
> 
> ...


First, are you aware you will need a Fire TV device to use the Recast? The Roku won't work for that. The latest Fire TV Stick (FTVS4K) is currently on sale for $35 or less and is the most powerful Fire TV device yet released.

Although designed with WiFi in mind, the Recast is not a WiFi-only device. It has an ethernet port on it and can be connected that way to your router. The FTVS4K is WiFi only although an ethernet adapter for it is available. The Recast will establish a "direct" WiFi connection to your FTVS4K if located near it. This bypasses your WiFi router for a better connection, and reduced load on your router.

OTA HD is either 720p or 1080i, never 1080p. The Recast will record those formats but will transcode them to 720p on playback. There is varying opinion as to whether this results in acceptable picture quality (PQ) for 1080i sources. A poor wifi connection will cause the Recast to automatically adjust PQ down from its best.

Note that more OTA HD video is 1080i than 720p so the issue of Recast PQ for 1080i can be important. The perception of PQ depends in part on TV screen size and viewing distance, and personal finickyness.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> OTA is 60/40, as NBC, CBS, and PBS are 1080i, ABC and FOX are 720p. However, there are some oddball affiliate channels that convert their network's feed to the other format. Cable is about the same mix, 60/40 1080i/720p. It's unfortunate that the industry didn't standardize on 1080i, as it's a far superior format to 720p.


Just a little historical perspective, not an attempt to restart a tired debate. At the time the ATSC standard was set there was considerable debate about video compression standards, specifically the relative merits of 1080i and 720p. Broadly speaking the broadcasters mostly supported 1080i while the technology industry supported 720p.Extensive subjective viewing tests were done of the two formats at identical bit rates across a range of content and devices. The results were inconclusive and that's why both formats made the final standard.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Scooby Doo said:


> Just a little historical perspective, not an attempt to restart a tired debate. At the time the ATSC standard was set there was considerable debate about video compression standards, specifically the relative merits of 1080i and 720p. Broadly speaking the broadcasters mostly supported 1080i while the technology industry supported 720p.Extensive subjective viewing tests were done of the two formats at identical bit rates across a range of content and devices. The results were inconclusive and that's why both formats made the final standard.


I wonder what bitrate Recast uses for its maximum 1440x720p, 60 fps H.264 transcodings? I've read a lot on Recast but have never seen this. Of course encoding quality depends on more than bitrate, resolution and framerate. Transcoding on the fly (as Recast must do) will not be able to support the maximum quality encodings possible if encoding compute time is unlimited.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

Wow there's a lot of mis-information about it's capabilities (deleting shows and such). 

I'm finding it works pretty well and have adjusted to the navigation. Still enjoying it after a week and haven't hooked my Bolt back up. If it didn't have the 30 second skip that would lower my rating a lot. But it works well and so does the streaming.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

@Edmund

I just set my Mom up with Recast, and she doesn't miss the numbers at all. She just picks up the remote and says, "NBC", and it tunes to NBC no matter what other app she might be in at the time (DirecTV NOW, HBO, etc.). Bonus is that she doesn't have to remember that, for example, Comet is channel 12.4. She just says "Comet". Channel surfing is a little tedious, but she does very little of that without looking at the guide.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

dlfl said:


> I wonder what bitrate Recast uses for its maximum 1440x720p, 60 fps H.264 transcodings? I've read a lot on Recast but have never seen this. Of course encoding quality depends on more than bitrate, resolution and framerate. Transcoding on the fly (as Recast must do) will not be able to support the maximum quality encodings possible if encoding compute time is unlimited.


I too have wondered about that. I have been unable to measure it because it's really bursty on my home network, not constant rate. If anyone knows a good way to measure the average bitrate then let me know and I'll do it. The subjective tests for HEVC vs MPEG2 showed about a 2:1 advantage so I would image the bit rate is below 10 Mbit/s. The realtime transcoders of today are to some degree compute limited as you say, but still far superior to the big box encoders of 20 years ago!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Scooby Doo said:


> Just a little historical perspective, not an attempt to restart a tired debate. At the time the ATSC standard was set there was considerable debate about video compression standards, specifically the relative merits of 1080i and 720p. Broadly speaking the broadcasters mostly supported 1080i while the technology industry supported 720p.Extensive subjective viewing tests were done of the two formats at identical bit rates across a range of content and devices. The results were inconclusive and that's why both formats made the final standard.


Back then, however, there were 1080i (CRT and CRT RPTV) and 720p (DLP RPTV) sets on the market, whereas virtually everyone has at least 1080p now. The issue of conversion was always a thorny one, as no set could do both formats equally as well. Today, with 1080p, it is obvious that 1080i provides much better picture quality than 720p, all else being equal, so the 720p providers should have switched to 1080i when it became apparent that it is superior. Of course, 720p can be more heavily compressed, so Comcast converted everything to 720p in an effort to cram as much possible video into the smallest possible number of QAM channels, with the result being an over-compressed disaster.

With today's 1080p sets, the jump from 720p to 1080i is huge, the jump from 1080i to 1080p is very small if decent deinterlacers are used. The difference is obvious. 1080i just looks sharper, clearer, and has more of that "wow" factor than even the best 720p (ESPN sets the standard).



Scooby Doo said:


> The subjective tests for HEVC vs MPEG2 showed about a 2:1 advantage so I would image the bit rate is below 10 Mbit/s. The realtime transcoders of today are to some degree compute limited as you say, but still far superior to the big box encoders of 20 years ago!


MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 is 2:1, MPEG-4 to HEVC is 2:1, so for the same resolution, HEVC should be 4x as efficient as MPEG-2. The variable there is that MPEG-2 is pretty much maxxed out in tweaking the improving the compression, whereas the learning curve has just begun for HEVC.


----------



## minidanas (Jul 23, 2008)

mdavej said:


> @Edmund
> 
> .... Channel surfing is a little tedious, but she does very little of that without looking at the guide.


If I'm understanding it correctly, that sounds like Recast has a channel guide. That takes the most of the pain away (pain caused by the absence of a number pad).

Also, Fire TV's ring buttons can sometimes serve to enter numbers, albeit very awkwardly. Recast doesn't allow that?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

minidanas said:


> Also, Fire TV's ring buttons can sometimes serve to enter numbers, albeit very awkwardly. Recast doesn't allow that?


You won't have to enter channel numbers after the Recast finds your channels and you decide which ones to display on the grid. The program grid lists channel names, not the channel numbers. Channels are identified either by station, network, or alias (e.g. Comet, MyTV, Grit, etc)

My only complaint with the Recast- you have to set the channel display list at each FireTV individually. So if you turn off all the Religious, HomeShopping or Espanol channels- you have to do it at each FireTV stick or box. You can't set it at the Recast and blast it to all FireTV endpoints. (in fact the FireTV app on the tablet will still show channels you've disabled at the other FireTVs)

Three days with it and I'm pretty satisfied. (4 tuner, Ethernet connected) Nicest surprise is that it sends Dolby AC3 in the live and recorded streams. And the Recast's tuner is on par with the Roamio and HD HomeRun network tuners. (all three devices are hooked up to the same antenna / splitter) I compared reception on fringe/weaker stations on both Recast and HDHR- and it was the same on both.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Overall, changing channels by voice works great if you follow the rules. If you don't, funny things happen. For example, I discovered you don't have to say, "Alexa, watch NBC". You can just say "NBC". This works for almost every channel except ABC. If you just say "ABC", then Alexa sings the ABC song as William Shatner would.


----------



## Intheswamp (Nov 15, 2017)

@Saturn_V is the image on the screen good and crisp? Are you satisfied with what you're looking at?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Intheswamp said:


> is the image on the screen good and crisp? Are you satisfied with what you're looking at?


I am, but I view compression/transcoding as a necessary evil instead of something to be avoided. The quality is as good as what the HD Home Run Extend streams out (also transcoded). That probably won't sit well with those preferring the Recast do native MPEG2TS.

I still believe that Amazon will allow MPEG2TS after a few updates. They've already tested it out with the new 4K sticks.


----------



## Intheswamp (Nov 15, 2017)

Well, I just ordered a Recast and a 2-pack of the regular Firesticks. Maybe it'll work out...we'll give it a shot.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Intheswamp said:


> Well, I just ordered a Recast and a 2-pack of the regular Firesticks. Maybe it'll work out...we'll give it a shot.


Did you get the 2 for $40 deal on the sticks? The 4K sticks have a 2 for $60 deal now. These, in addition to providing 4K video capability, have more processing power, better wifi, and come with the more advanced remote control that can control volume, mute and power on/off on your TV or sound bar. If they haven't shipped your order you can probably modify it. IMHO the extra $20 is well spent.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

someone was asking about Recast bit rates, 7-9 Mb from my monitoring. 









Taken this morning from Good Morning America's live broadcast.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> someone was asking about Recast bit rates, 7-9 Mb from my monitoring.Taken this morning from Good Morning America's live broadcast.


Cool. How are you measuring that?


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Saturn_V said:


> someone was asking about Recast bit rates, 7-9 Mb from my monitoring.
> Taken this morning from Good Morning America's live broadcast.


That's very good. My cable feed for ABC is only 6Mbps.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Scooby Doo said:


> Cool. How are you measuring that?


FireTV has Dev Tools that give you all sorts of goodies. One's called the System X-Ray bar, and the other gives media info for anything played in the FireTV. (even non amazon-apps, anything that uses the android media playback calls)

How to access the hidden Developer Tools Menu on the Amazon Fire TV and Fire TV Stick

Explanation of the System X-Ray bar on the Amazon Fire TV and Fire TV Stick


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

That 48.656 frame rate seems strange. I thought the Recast streamed 60 fps.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

dlfl said:


> That 48.656 frame rate seems strange. I thought the Recast streamed 60 fps.


I think it's due to the snapshot status that it captures. The data reported in the multimedia panel is constantly changing. 









But it didn't feel like it was dropping frames to me.

More about the Dev Tool Options, horse's mouth. 
Developer Tool Options | Amazon Fire TV


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

FWIW, the person who does AFTVnews.com posted a video feature he did with a local newscaster:
Talking to Rich DeMuro from Los Angeles' KTLA 5 Morning News about the Amazon Fire TV Recast
Pretty much a puff piece it seems.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> FWIW, the person who does AFTVnews.com posted a video feature he did with a local newscaster:
> Talking to Rich DeMuro from Los Angeles' KTLA 5 Morning News about the Amazon Fire TV Recast
> Pretty much a puff piece it seems.


Yeah, pretty much aimed at clueless people who haven't been on Amazon recently, but still a decent piece.


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 7, 2016)

Thanks to the folks here and the tip regarding the developer tools, I was able to confirm that my Recast is indeed using the “direct WiFi” connection to stream the video. When I tune to a channel, I see the SSID switch to “amazon-0099frb...”. I guess that makes sense considering the Recast and FireTV are within a few feet of each other. 

Personally, I’m not crazy about that. I wonder if it would still do that even if everything was hard wired. My Recast is using Ethernet, but the FireTV (pendant) is using WiFi. I’m going to get an ethernet adapter just for the heck of it. I prefer to have it all hard wired on my network if possible.


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

Maybe it's time Tivo allowed wireless between the box and Mini's like this Amazon DVR does. Seems a simple software update could be all that is needed. I mean a tiny Roku stick can stream no problem.

Time to replace the Mini with a Tivo usb stick.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

schatham said:


> Maybe it's time Tivo allowed wireless between the box and Mini's like this Amazon DVR does. Seems a simple software update could be all that is needed. I mean a tiny Roku stick can stream no problem.
> 
> Time to replace the Mini with a Tivo usb stick.


TiVo has said, it's a quality-of-picture issue.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Mikeguy said:


> TiVo has said, it's a quality-of-picture issue.


I feel so sad that in so many places, no one ever says it's a quality of audio issue. Every time I use my Roku or other streaming device, I hear sound that reminds me of TV in the 60's. But smart phones and tablets are made to fill the mobile need. If anyone goes to a movie, and was presented with the same sound the heard from the phone, would they notice? I don't know. For me it's the whole experience. Sorry, didn't mean to go off the rails.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

swyman18 said:


> Thanks to the folks here and the tip regarding the developer tools, I was able to confirm that my Recast is indeed using the "direct WiFi" connection to stream the video. When I tune to a channel, I see the SSID switch to "amazon-0099frb...". I guess that makes sense considering the Recast and FireTV are within a few feet of each other.


FYI, my Fire TV stick doesn't switch to the direct WiFi connection. (a network that I thought was only for setup via the FireTV app.)


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 7, 2016)

Saturn_V said:


> FYI, my Fire TV stick doesn't switch to the direct WiFi connection. (a network that I thought was only for setup via the FireTV app.)


Yeah, I think it uses the same access point. Just curious, how far apart are your Recast and FireTV stick?

Mine are about 3 feet apart. I could try to separate them further, but it may not be worth the hassle.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

swyman18 said:


> Yeah, I think it uses the same access point. Just curious, how far apart are your Recast and FireTV stick?


Next room, 10-15 ft.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I don't believe wifi direct access is just for setup. Rather to provide a superior wifi connection and unload your router. Don't see any incentive to want to avoid it other than to use ethernet at both the Recast and the Fire TV.


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 7, 2016)

dlfl said:


> I don't believe wifi direct access is just for setup. Rather to provide a superior wifi connection and unload your router. Don't see any incentive to want to avoid it other than to use ethernet at both the Recast and the Fire TV.


Yes, in my case I would prefer to use Ethernet for both. I'm curious to see once I get my FireTV hooked to Ethernet if it will still attempt to do the direct WiFi. I assume with the Ethernet adapter in place then the WiFi in general will be disabled on the FireTV?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

schatham said:


> Maybe it's time Tivo allowed wireless between the box and Mini's like this Amazon DVR does. Seems a simple software update could be all that is needed. I mean a tiny Roku stick can stream no problem.
> 
> Time to replace the Mini with a Tivo usb stick.


It's not as easy to move a 17mbps MPEG-2 stream over Wi-Fi as it is a highly compressed MPEG-4 stream, plus the TiVo Mini doesn't have wireless. It's possible, but it would be a lot more finicky than a Roku stick or something. AFAIK, there is no live 4k streaming on any of them, so they can buffer 4k ahead quite a bit.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

swyman18 said:


> Yes, in my case I would prefer to use Ethernet for both. I'm curious to see once I get my FireTV hooked to Ethernet if it will still attempt to do the direct WiFi. I assume with the Ethernet adapter in place then the WiFi in general will be disabled on the FireTV?


Yes


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

dlfl said:


> I don't believe wifi direct access is just for setup. Rather to provide a superior wifi connection and unload your router. Don't see any incentive to want to avoid it other than to use ethernet at both the Recast and the Fire TV.


The Recast and the Wifi router are in the same room in my house, but are separated by roughly six feet. But when I did play a stream on the Mancave TV, it *did* switch to the Amazon SSID too; Which is closer to the Recast than to the router- ~2ft difference.

Which is silly. RSSI for my router is -40 dBM. RSSI for the Amazon is -41dbM. There's no real difference in signal strength. And it takes 10 seconds for the FireTV to switch back to real router.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It's not as easy to move a 17mbps MPEG-2 stream over Wi-Fi as it is a highly compressed MPEG-4 stream, plus the TiVo Mini doesn't have wireless. It's possible, but it would be a lot more finicky than a Roku stick or something. AFAIK, there is no live 4k streaming on any of them, so they can buffer 4k ahead quite a bit.


I can connect a Mini up to one of my wireless bridges, and I will get an identical experience as when using a wired connection.

Heck even if I connect one of my streaming players to a wireless bridge, I can stream any UHD BD or 2K BD rip with zero issues.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> I can connect a Mini up to one of my wireless bridges, and I will get an identical experience as when using a wired connection.


Getting a reliable and consistent ~20 megabit wireless connection isn't _that _hard, but house layout and bad network design can screw that up pretty easily. Most people just use what garbage box the cable company gave them, put the equipment somewhere out of the way and don't pay signal quality much mind.

I totally understand why TiVo won't support trying to connect mini's wirelessly and Amazon isn't even trying to throw around the real MPEG-2 streams. You can do it and make it work, but they don't want to provide tech support for that.

Although, in Amazon's case, I heard reports that they had considered allowing full-fat MPEG2 streaming if the network was good enough, but left it out for simplicity. Hopefully that's something they'll enable via a software update down the road. It would make the 4-tuner box much more appealing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I can connect a Mini up to one of my wireless bridges, and I will get an identical experience as when using a wired connection.
> 
> Heck even if I connect one of my streaming players to a wireless bridge, I can stream any UHD BD ort 2K BD rip with zero issues.


Says the guy with several hardwired APs, security cameras, NASes, streaming devices, Verizon FiOS, and dozens of devices in his condo. 

The problem is, wireless isn't consistent enough. Yes, under good circumstances, it absolutely can work, but that's not something that TiVo wants to support. The AT&T, Frontier, and DirecTV wireless boxes use much lower bitrates in MPEG-4, and even they have their limitations. The Comcast implementation, which might stream MPEG-2, has a very limited range from Comcast's own router that they control.



OrangeCrush said:


> Although, in Amazon's case, I heard reports that they had considered allowing full-fat MPEG2 streaming if the network was good enough, but left it out for simplicity. Hopefully that's something they'll enable via a software update down the road. It would make the 4-tuner box much more appealing.


Amazon could do what TiVo couldn't, because Amazon has the encoders sitting there, so they dynamically switch quality levels if there isn't enough bandwidth. They could also find a middleground with 1080p MPEG-4.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Says the guy with several hardwired APs, security cameras, NASes, streaming devices, Verizon FiOS, and dozens of devices in his condo.
> 
> The problem is, wireless isn't consistent enough. Yes, under good circumstances, it absolutely can work, but that's not something that TiVo wants to support. The AT&T, Frontier, and DirecTV wireless boxes use much lower bitrates in MPEG-4, and even they have their limitations. The Comcast implementation, which might stream MPEG-2, has a very limited range from Comcast's own router that they control.
> 
> Amazon could do what TiVo couldn't, because Amazon has the encoders sitting there, so they dynamically switch quality levels if there isn't enough bandwidth. They could also find a middleground with 1080p MPEG-4.


The issue is that the majority of people do not have a properly set up wifi network. One of the first things is having multiple Access Points to provide proper coverage. But most people only have one AP.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> The issue is that the majority of people do not have a properly set up wifi network. One of the first things is having multiple Access Points to provide proper coverage. But most people only have one AP.


Most houses and apartments only need one AP, but yes, larger houses, houses made out of weird materials, or weirdly shaped houses need multiple APs. I've seen several cases of "my house so big my Wi-Fi don't work".


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Amazon could do what TiVo couldn't, because Amazon has the encoders sitting there, so they dynamically switch quality levels if there isn't enough bandwidth. They could also find a middleground with 1080p MPEG-4.


But what kills it for me is there are only *two* transcoder lanes on a 4 tuner box, and transcoding is the only way to get video streams out. If they enable native MPEG2 streaming on high quality networks to compatible clients, it ought to be able to support many more simultaneous streams. I can run four simultaneous 20 megabit streams from my Roamio to my minis without my network breaking a sweat.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

OrangeCrush said:


> But what kills it for me is there are only *two* transcoder lanes on a 4 tuner box, and transcoding is the only way to get video streams out. If they enable native MPEG2 streaming on high quality networks to compatible clients, it ought to be able to support many more simultaneous streams. I can run four simultaneous 20 megabit streams from my Roamio to my minis without my network breaking a sweat.


Amazon's box is supposed to be cheap. $230/$280 for the DVR total (no silly separate "all-in" fee) and two "Minis" costing $25 each. The "Minis" have they're own direct connection to the Internet and can turn you TV into a smart TV if needed. For most people, that's all they'll ever need. They're just trying to playback the episode of Survivor that they missed, and half of them will stream it to their tablet or smartphone so who cares if it's MPEG4 720p?


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

I bet the prices will continue to drop on these devices. Their basic Fire Stick is down to almost pocket change now.

The new Amazon Fire TV Recast price is already slashed for Black Friday


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

OrangeCrush said:


> But what kills it for me is there are only *two* transcoder lanes on a 4 tuner box, and transcoding is the only way to get video streams out. If they enable native MPEG2 streaming on high quality networks to compatible clients, it ought to be able to support many more simultaneous streams. I can run four simultaneous 20 megabit streams from my Roamio to my minis without my network breaking a sweat.


I agree. The two encoders on the 4-tuner model makes zero sense is going to cause consumer confusion. In theory, yes, they could have two MPEG-2 and two MPEG-4 streams, but that's even more confusing, and unreliable if there isn't enough bandwidth to handle the MPEG-2 streams, especially in major O&O markets with few subchannels to rob the main feed of bandwidth.



BobCamp1 said:


> Amazon's box is supposed to be cheap. $230/$280 for the DVR total (no silly separate "all-in" fee) and two "Minis" costing $25 each. The "Minis" have they're own direct connection to the Internet and can turn you TV into a smart TV if needed. For most people, that's all they'll ever need. They're just trying to playback the episode of Survivor that they missed, and half of them will stream it to their tablet or smartphone so who cares if it's MPEG4 720p?


They could at least get it to 1080p MPEG-4 for all those cheap 4k TVs Amazon sells. 720p is pathetic in this day and age, especially when Amazon's own streaming service has very good 1080p and 4k streaming.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Most houses and apartments only need one AP, but yes, larger houses, houses made out of weird materials, or weirdly shaped houses need multiple APs. I've seen several cases of "my house so big my Wi-Fi don't work".


And I've seen most cases where one AP does not even cover a condo properly. For proper coverage you should have excellent signal strength everywhere. And then if you have a lot of devices, you also need more APs to avoid congestion.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Bigg said:


> In theory, yes, they could have two MPEG-2 and two MPEG-4 streams


They should've put at least 4-transcoders in the 4-tuner box, cheaping out on that was a boneheaded move, imo.

My ideal "if I were in charge!" solution would be for it to push as many MPEG-2 streams as the network could stand and only fall back to transcoding to MPEG-4 when bandwidth isn't cutting it or it's going to a mobile device or out of the home. It's at least plausible this could come in a future software update, which would make the device much more appealing as a "if my TiVo dies" option.



Bigg said:


> They could at least get it to 1080p MPEG-4 for all those cheap 4k TVs Amazon sells. 720p is pathetic in this day and age


Broadcast doesn't go up to 1080p. At best, it's either 1080i or 720p. But I'd prefer they handle that more gracefully and not rescale 1080i, they're introducing another destructive conversion step that shouldn't need to be there.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> And I've seen most cases where one AP does not even cover a condo properly. For proper coverage you should have excellent signal strength everywhere. And then if you have a lot of devices, you also need more APs to avoid congestion.


Sure, there's old and weird shaped condos, and yes, if you have 50 different devices, you do need multiple APs. Most people don't.



OrangeCrush said:


> They should've put at least 4-transcoders in the 4-tuner box, cheaping out on that was a boneheaded move, imo.


Agreed.



> My ideal "if I were in charge!" solution would be for it to push as many MPEG-2 streams as the network could stand and only fall back to transcoding to MPEG-4 when bandwidth isn't cutting it or it's going to a mobile device or out of the home. It's at least plausible this could come in a future software update, which would make the device much more appealing as a "if my TiVo dies" option.


Yes, that's a good solution, as long as they can transition between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 on the player end smoothly. It might work better to transcode everything, but offer a 1080p option. As a purist, I would prefer MPEG-2 that hasn't been re-compressed, but I'm not sure how that gets implemented in a reliable manner if it has to switch back and forth.



> Broadcast doesn't go up to 1080p. At best, it's either 1080i or 720p. But I'd prefer they handle that more gracefully and not rescale 1080i, they're introducing another destructive conversion step that shouldn't need to be there.


The idea is that you run the de-interlacing on the Recast, and send out 1080p locally. It ends up as 1080p or 2160p anyway for your TV.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Bigg said:


> I agree. The two encoders on the 4-tuner model makes zero sense is going to cause consumer confusion. In theory, yes, they could have two MPEG-2 and two MPEG-4 streams, but that's even more confusing, and unreliable if there isn't enough bandwidth to handle the MPEG-2 streams, especially in major O&O markets with few subchannels to rob the main feed of bandwidth.
> 
> They could at least get it to 1080p MPEG-4 for all those cheap 4k TVs Amazon sells. 720p is pathetic in this day and age, especially when Amazon's own streaming service has very good 1080p and 4k streaming.


I don't know much about how this works... could they have 4 encoders but only have 2 activated? Maybe turn 2 more on with an update?


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> I don't know much about how this works... could they have 4 encoders but only have 2 activated? Maybe turn 2 more on with an update?


I've had similar thoughts since the two tuner decision doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe they had four tuners in the box design but the box was overheating so they disabled two? I still think the most likely explanation it they didn't want to deal with the customer support costs that would come from people sending four streams over their WiFi.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Some of you people should consider offering your wisdom about 4-tuners, 2-streams, 720p etc. to Amazon. I'm sure they know little about design and market targets and desperately need your help.


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Some of you people should consider offering your wisdom about 4-tuners, 2-streams, 720p etc. to Amazon. I'm sure they know little about design and market targets and desperately need your help.


Ouch! Hey, if you are going to remove poorly informed speculation from this site then what's going to be left?


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Scooby Doo said:


> Ouch! Hey, if you are going to remove poorly informed speculation from this site then what's going to be left?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Scooby Doo said:


> Ouch! Hey, if you are going to remove poorly informed speculation from this site then what's going to be left?


Sorry if I got a little sarcastic there, but there is a fairly obvious, and likely, use case for having 4 tuners (i.e., being able to record up to 4 programs simulataneously) and 2 playback streams/transcoders, which has been pointed out earlier.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

OrangeCrush said:


> They should've put at least 4-transcoders in the 4-tuner box, cheaping out on that was a boneheaded move, imo.
> 
> My ideal "if I were in charge!" solution would be for it to push as many MPEG-2 streams as the network could stand and only fall back to transcoding to MPEG-4 when bandwidth isn't cutting it or it's going to a mobile device or out of the home. It's at least plausible this could come in a future software update, which would make the device much more appealing as a "if my TiVo dies" option.
> 
> Broadcast doesn't go up to 1080p. At best, it's either 1080i or 720p. But I'd prefer they handle that more gracefully and not rescale 1080i, they're introducing another destructive conversion step that shouldn't need to be there.


 Was that the case? For instance the TiVo Bolt can only encode two streams because that is all the SoC allows. Heck, Amazon might be using the same SoC. And if so then that would explain two two stream limit. They can only use what is available. At least if they want to keeps costs down


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Sure, there's old and weird shaped condos, and yes, if you have 50 different devices, you do need multiple APs. Most people don't.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> ...


Only that everyone I've needed to fix their WiFi, whether in a condo, house, or two house, it was always because they only had one AP. Adding more APs always fixed the problem. Plus most people I know have dozens of devices on their Network. For example a family. All the thrre, four, five, andsix person family's I know, all have multiple wifi devices for each family member. Then you add PCs, streaming boxes, TVs, smart device etc, and the number balloons very quickly to several dozen.

My GF has one of the few homes I know with less than fifteen wifi devices on their network. And half of her wifi devices I gave to her. Heck even my 84 and 78 year old parents have more wifi devices in their home


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Anyone seriously curious about the Recast should be monitoring this thread at the AVS forum:
Amazon RECAST OTA DVR formerly known as "Frank" - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Apparently in some cases the Recast will automatically switch between direct- and router WiFi connection DURING viewing a video and this causes a nasty glitch. A user on the AVS forum has posted an undocumented way to manually select which WiFi connection to use:
Amazon RECAST OTA DVR formerly known as "Frank" - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mschnebly said:


> I don't know much about how this works... could they have 4 encoders but only have 2 activated? Maybe turn 2 more on with an update?


Possible, but probably not.



aaronwt said:


> Only that everyone I've needed to fix their WiFi, whether in a condo, house, or two house, it was always because they only had one AP.


True, there are a lot of use cases that require more than one AP, hence the wireless mesh craze. Your average user is still fine with a single AP. I think 802.11ax is going to be HUGE for meshes, as they can use 4x4 802.11ax for backhaul way before end user devices get it.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Anyone seriously curious about the Recast should be monitoring this thread at the AVS forum:
> Amazon RECAST OTA DVR formerly known as "Frank" - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
> Apparently in some cases the Recast will automatically switch between direct- and router WiFi connection DURING viewing a video and this causes a nasty glitch. A user on the AVS forum has posted an undocumented way to manually select which WiFi connection to use:
> Amazon RECAST OTA DVR formerly known as "Frank" - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews


I'd expect a few bugs in this product. They're not the only ones who would release half-baked software because Christmas was coming (cough - Hydra - cough).


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

OrangeCrush said:


> Broadcast doesn't go up to 1080p. At best, it's either 1080i or 720p. But I'd prefer they handle that more gracefully and not rescale 1080i, they're introducing another destructive conversion step that shouldn't need to be there.


Where I live, all OTA is either 720p or 480i except for CBS and PBS, which are 1080i.

Once the Great Move occurs, all my stations will be 720p. All my TVs except one are 720p. Technically, my smartphone and tablets are 1080p but there's no way you can tell unless you have 20/5 vision like Superman.

I prefer it exactly the way Amazon has it.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Where I live, all OTA is either 720p or 480i except for CBS and PBS, which are 1080i.


NBC and CW should be 1080i as well.

Scott


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Where I live, all OTA is either 720p or 480i except for CBS and PBS, which are 1080i.
> 
> Once the Great Move occurs, all my stations will be 720p. All my TVs except one are 720p. Technically, my smartphone and tablets are 1080p but there's no way you can tell unless you have 20/5 vision like Superman.
> 
> I prefer it exactly the way Amazon has it.


What makes you think OTA is changing to 720p?


----------



## Jim1348 (Jan 3, 2015)

I just ran across this thread and I see I have some reading to do. My bottom line is whether I should recommend this to friends and family that ask me for suggestions on equipment. I currently have a Tivo Roamio OTA, a Tivo Mini and a Tivo Stream. How is the receiver performance on the Amazon RECAST OTA DVR? Is it sensitive and selective? How well does it deal with MPDI (Multi-Path Distortion Interference)? To Tivo's credit, my Roamio OTA deals with MPDI very well.

Also, when you are streaming to a smartphone, does the app allow selection of an Audio Only mode? I can do that with my Slingbox app and I find that to be quite handy for me.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

HerronScott said:


> NBC and CW should be 1080i as well.
> 
> Scott


They aren't. In Syracuse, NY, CW is an HD substation of NBC. Sometimes CBS (WTVH) is also temporarily a 720p substation of NBC, as that transmitter has tons of problems. Nobody notices that NBC is 720p.

It could be worse. In Utica, NY, NBC, CBS, and CW are all broadcasting on the same channel. NBC is over-compressed 1080i, and the other two are 720p. IMO, NBC is better off switching to 720p. On the other hand, nobody notices CBS is 720p.

My point is that nobody cares that 1080i is being converted to 720p. They simply don't notice the difference. And as more and more subchannels are added, the fewer 1080i OTA channels there will be. So I think Amazon has it right outputting streams at 720p. If it's done correctly, no one will even notice.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> What makes you think OTA is changing to 720p?


The CBS affiliate has plans to add a lot more subchannels during its move. It's owned by the same company as the 720p NBC/CW affiliate. CBS is already at 6 Mbps 1080i, so it only has one way to go. Obviously, plans can change, and I'll find out for certain in 2020.

I think the days of OTA being high quality are coming to an end. It's becoming a poor man's cable system, crammed with tons of channels that are over compressed. As a result, you won't need a $1000 system to record it and play it back.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

The average consumer isn't going to care, or notice, that it's 720p. I'm also guessing that could change down the road with an update from Amazon. 

I've been using this since it came out and have my TiVo Bolt unplugged. There were a few adjustments but all my channels come in without issues, whereas on the Bolt I was always adjusting and re-adjusting the antenna.

I also think there may have been some update since I could have sworn the show I recorded yesterday (Supergirl) looked sharper than the week prior. I can't find the site that I read about that, but supposedly there was an update of some sort. Either way, I'm happy with the recast.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> The CBS affiliate has plans to add a lot more subchannels during its move. It's owned by the same company as the 720p NBC/CW affiliate. CBS is already at 6 Mbps 1080i, so it only has one way to go. Obviously, plans can change, and I'll find out for certain in 2020.
> 
> I think the days of OTA being high quality are coming to an end. It's becoming a poor man's cable system, crammed with tons of channels that are over compressed. As a result, you won't need a $1000 system to record it and play it back.


I have shared stations here and they stayed at 1080i. There is no reason to change just because they are adding subchannels or sharing bandwidth. Even our PBS has two 1080i streams with a couple of 480i subs.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> I have shared stations here and they stayed at 1080i. There is no reason to change just because they are adding subchannels or sharing bandwidth. Even our PBS has two 1080i streams with a couple of 480i subs.


I think the point he's making is that whatever the resolution is, if starved for bit rate, its a lower quality.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I think the point he's making is that whatever the resolution is, if starved for bit rate, its a lower quality.


Read it again.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> Read it again.


I think you should read it again also as you missed the point about compression reducing the video quality.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> I have shared stations here and they stayed at 1080i. There is no reason to change just because they are adding subchannels or sharing bandwidth. Even our PBS has two 1080i streams with a couple of 480i subs.


Doing that generally results in poor video quality and is the exception rather than the rule. PBS has a lot of "talking heads" content and can get by with two 5 Mbps 1080i subchannels. NBC and CBS show sports and cannot get away with it. Also, 4 or more SD subchannels take up quite a bit of bandwidth and I believe they are almost always paired up with a 720p main channel.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

NJChris said:


> The average consumer isn't going to care, or notice, that it's 720p.


While I was watching the Big12 Championship football game (ESPN/ABC 720p), I was flipping between both the Fire TV Recast and the TiVo Roamio OTA. Native MPEG2TS from the Roamio and 9Mb/s h.264 from the Recast, on a 46" TV.

Didn't see a large enough difference in quality for me to prefer one over the other. After halftime, I left it on the Recast for the rest of the game.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I think you should read it again also as you missed the point about compression reducing the video quality.


Sigh. He specifically said 720p. That is what I was responding to. The quality is a different topic that he introduced later.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> My point is that nobody cares that 1080i is being converted to 720p. They simply don't notice the difference. And as more and more subchannels are added, the fewer 1080i OTA channels there will be. So I think Amazon has it right outputting streams at 720p. If it's done correctly, no one will even notice.


WRONG. They are targeting large urban markets that have O&O 1080i stations pushing 17mbps+ 1080i. That's going to suffer a massive loss in detail dropping to 720p MPEG-4.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> WRONG. They are targeting large urban markets that have O&O 1080i stations pushing 17mbps+ 1080i. That's going to suffer a massive loss in detail dropping to 720p MPEG-4.


How many markets actually have a 17Mbps primary broadcast? There were probably plenty many years ago. But now with all the sub-channels that have been added, that must be extremely rare? I know it doesn't exist in the DC area.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Bigg said:


> WRONG. They are targeting large urban markets that have O&O 1080i stations pushing 17mbps+ 1080i. That's going to suffer a massive loss in detail dropping to 720p MPEG-4.


I think guys like you and me and posters on this forum care about video quality but the masses don't or can't tell (I read somewhere that almost 50% of people who own HDTVs are watching them still in SD). I remember being at my mom's boyfriends a while ago and he was telling me how great the picture was on his HDTV. I sat down to watch some hockey and it was an SD feed and atrocious but he thought it was just grand.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

aaronwt said:


> How many markets actually have a 17Mbps primary broadcast? There were probably plenty many years ago. But now with all the sub-channels that have been added, that must be extremely rare? I know it doesn't exist in the DC area.


Back in 2015 I had two. Now my highest is 12Mbps (ESPN) and CBS/NBC have dropped to 11Mbps. Through the years each has added 3 subs. Until I see some better numbers I don't see any reason to switch from 1080p. I seem to recall there was talk about no need for 4k since there was no content. I guess there is now content, but no way to receive it.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

JoeKustra said:


> Back in 2015 I had two. Now my highest is 12Mbps (ESPN) and CBS/NBC have dropped to 11Mbps. Through the years each has added 3 subs. Until I see some better numbers I don't see any reason to switch from 1080p. I seem to recall there was talk about no need for 4k since there was no content. I guess there is now content, but no way to receive it.


TCF 2021: lots of complaints about downrezzed 2160p!


----------



## ashipkowski (Oct 8, 2008)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I think guys like you and me and posters on this forum care about video quality but the masses don't or can't tell (I read somewhere that almost 50% of people who own HDTVs are watching them still in SD). I remember being at my mom's boyfriends a while ago and he was telling me how great the picture was on his HDTV. I sat down to watch some hockey and it was an SD feed and atrocious but he thought it was just grand.


I have nearly the same story, except my mom had married the guy, it was football, and I actually changed it to the HD feed to show him. He went "huh," watched it that way for a bit, then *changed it back.* This was not a small HDTV, either, it was at least 60".

*Edit:* This makes me think of the aspect where people prefer the audio distortions from the primary recording/playback method when they came of age, and others stick out to them.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

ashipkowski said:


> I have nearly the same story, except my mom had married the guy, it was football, and I actually changed it to the HD feed to show him. He went "huh," watched it that way for a bit, then *changed it back.* This was not a small HDTV, either, it was at least 60".
> 
> *Edit:* This makes me think of the aspect where people prefer the audio distortions from the primary recording/playback method when they came of age, and others stick out to them.


That's funny. I can't recall exactly what year it was (maybe 2010) but it was one of those early HDTVs that was not a flat screen. I still go over to my mom's to this day and she'll be watching some daytime TV show on the SD feed that's letterboxed and I tell her she can watch a better version of it on the HD feed and change it for her. But she almost always is watching the SD feed when I go over next time.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> How many markets actually have a 17Mbps primary broadcast? There were probably plenty many years ago. But now with all the sub-channels that have been added, that must be extremely rare? I know it doesn't exist in the DC area.


A number of NBC channels are sharing now, but there are several left in several major markets. Remember that the NYC market alone has about 6% of the US population, and the top 10 markets combined have over 10% of the US population. While bitrates are all over the place, in every single one of the top 10 markets, I was able to find at least one station that peaks between 14.95mbps and 17mbps based on rabbitears.info.



PSU_Sudzi said:


> I think guys like you and me and posters on this forum care about video quality but the masses don't or can't tell (I read somewhere that almost 50% of people who own HDTVs are watching them still in SD). I remember being at my mom's boyfriends a while ago and he was telling me how great the picture was on his HDTV. I sat down to watch some hockey and it was an SD feed and atrocious but he thought it was just grand.


Considering that a majority of America is either too stupid and oblivious to notice that Comcast looks like a blurry, nasty mess now with their bit-starved MPEG-4 CBR encoding, or their TVs are too small and too far away, so yes, a large chunk of America is ignorant, stupid, and oblivious when it comes to video quality. Just as many are clueless are oblivious to audio quality. I find people using low-end soundbars, or even worse, built-in TV speakers.



PSU_Sudzi said:


> TCF 2021: lots of complaints about downrezzed 2160p!


No. We're getting screwed in 2020. DirecTV will down-rez the NHK 4320p Olympics satellite feed to 2160p, which will still look pretty awesome, but then NBC will down-rez that to 1080i, at which point some NBC stations and some Comcast markets will down-rez it to 720p and bit-starve it, while others will keep it at 1080i but over-compress it due to channel sharing, and it will look like varying degrees of crap, which is a shame, as NHK is going to spend a fortune producing a pristine 4320p feed.

Maybe there's some hope if someone can get streaming rights for it, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be technically possible to offer time-delayed 4320p HEVC streams at 100mbps+ through a Samsung Smart TV with the right app on it. Either that, or DirecTV can broadcast a 2160p feed and throw a lot of bitrate on it with the whole transponder bonding reverse band that's got a crapload of unused bandwidth, but few people will be able to see it, as most tech savvy people have cut the cord already, and your average rural or old folks with DirecTV won't have 4k TVs set up with 4k receivers.


----------



## ashipkowski (Oct 8, 2008)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> That's funny. I can't recall exactly what year it was (maybe 2010) but it was one of those early HDTVs that was not a flat screen. I still go over to my mom's to this day and she'll be watching some daytime TV show on the SD feed that's letterboxed and I tell her she can watch a better version of it on the HD feed and change it for her. But she almost always is watching the SD feed when I go over next time.


The TV in my story was a large flat panel; I think it was LCD, but it is possible it was plasma.

I feel like part of the problem is that, on some cable providers, putting in the station number gets you the SD feed, and the HD feed is a different channel. Another problem might be the HD TVs sold with motion interpolation on by default and causing "soap opera effect," as I've seen that bother people about HD when it's a TV setting.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, plenty of people still buy DVDs, of all things. I've seen people complain when they're forced to buy the Blu-Ray version of a movie about paying for something they won't use (because the Blu-Ray comes with the DVD). And those people generally actually only have DVD players. 

Yes, DVD sales are still consistently bigger than Blu-Ray sales, so people are feeling that standard def is "good enough". And the price difference isn't gigantic - a few bucks would get you a high-def copy on Blu-Ray. (And they probably have a player - Blu-Ray players aren't expensive - while they still make DVD players, they generally cost about the same now - you aren't spending more than $20 at the low end).

Of course, my cable provider has done it different - on their current boxes, if you enter the channel number, it'll get you the HD version of the channel - they remapped the HD channels to the SD equivalents. Personally I can't stand those boxes because the remapping means what I normally use for the high-def channels doesn't work anymore. When you're used to tuning to 211 for the high def version of a channel, going back to entering the SD channel number is just a huge mess. If they kept both so those of used to the "old" channel scheme and allowed the remap, that would solve so many problems


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> A number of NBC channels are sharing now, but there are several left in several major markets. Remember that the NYC market alone has about 6% of the US population, and the top 10 markets combined have over 10% of the US population. While bitrates are all over the place, in every single one of the top 10 markets, I was able to find at least one station that peaks between 14.95mbps and 17mbps based on rabbitears.info.


That website has bad information in it. My area is flat out wrong. And I can't believe you've made the mistake of comparing peak bit rates to average bit rates. Most stations dynamically share the channel bandwidth by adjusting the bitrates of the main channel and subchannels. This is automatic. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

The max. bit rate for ATSC 1.0 is just over 19 Mbps, so if the main channel peaked at 17 Mbps (and I doubt it did) that would leave just 2 Mbps for all the subchannels. That's not nearly enough if one of the subchannels is in HD, and you'll even see a big quality drop in the SD subchannels too.

Once again, the Amazon Recast is not for video/audio snobs. It is a low or maybe middle tier DVR product.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I think guys like you and me and posters on this forum care about video quality but the masses don't or can't tell (I read somewhere that almost 50% of people who own HDTVs are watching them still in SD).


Here in Indy as each network/channel has degraded over the years I have contacted them regarding their new inferior image. The (first) typical response is there must be something wrong with my antenna. After a few back and forth emails with the Engineering Director they ultimately admit the number of sub channels have "destroyed" the major network image and hopefully new dynamic allocation hardware will help at some point. A few comments from the directors...

- We (PBS) switched to 720p since 1080i looked so bad.
- NBC has much newer/better equipment and less sub channels hence they look better than us (ABC)
- We (NBC) hope to "better" tweak the allocated bandwidth for the major network feed.
- We (CBS) will be getting new equipment for better allocation.

Bottom line the sub channel revenue is far more valuable to them than image quality. Let alone I doubt anyone from the station actually watches via OTA. Surely they subscribe to a one or another pay service. If they did I would like to think they would be embarrassed much like viewing the before/after screens captures I would email after they denied any issue... it looks great here. A few weeks back ABC was off the air for roughly three days (Saturday - Tuesday) - zero signal. Their voicemail... our antenna is broken and we hope to be back broadcasting in a few days.

The latest (and worse) here is ABC and every time I watch something I instantly see the SD (at best) image and it takes several minutes for my eyes/mind to "accept" the inferior image. I cancelled a couple of season passes as they were marginal to start with and the reduce image tipped the scale.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> Once again, the Amazon Recast is not for video/audio snobs. It is a low or maybe middle tier DVR product.


Ooh, cool, I'm a snob. 

Actually, I just like the TiVo peanut remote and lotsa trickplay.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> That website has bad information in it. My area is flat out wrong.


It may be outdated.



> And I can't believe you've made the mistake of comparing peak bit rates to average bit rates. Most stations dynamically share the channel bandwidth by adjusting the bitrates of the main channel and subchannels. This is automatic. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.


Stat muxing works really, really well. It is no mistake. We are not talking about quality (although peak bandwidth helps quality with a good stat mux for scenes with a lot of motion or detail), we are talking about network bandwidth. You have to plan your network bandwidth for the peak, not the average. Quality is more debatable since it depends on how well the mux is done.



> The max. bit rate for ATSC 1.0 is just over 19 Mbps, so if the main channel peaked at 17 Mbps (and I doubt it did) that would leave just 2 Mbps for all the subchannels. That's not nearly enough if one of the subchannels is in HD, and you'll even see a big quality drop in the SD subchannels too.


Some of the major market O&O stations have a single SD subchannel, so a minimum of 2mbps makes perfect sense.



> Once again, the Amazon Recast is not for video/audio snobs. It is a low or maybe middle tier DVR product.


Unfortunately true.



Charles R said:


> Here in Indy as each network/channel has degraded over the years I have contacted them regarding their new inferior image. The (first) typical response is there must be something wrong with my antenna. After a few back and forth emails with the Engineering Director they ultimately admit the number of sub channels have "destroyed" the major network image and hopefully new dynamic allocation hardware will help at some point. A few comments from the directors...


I complained to my local PBS channel, WEDH-DT, about their crappy mux maybe two years ago, and they said they were working to fix it. They eventually did, and it looks great now. They've been 1HD/2SD all along, but for a while the HD feed was only 9mbps, which made no sense. They're now up to 12mbps, although I think they still have some slack space that's unused on their 8VSB transmitter, possibly a placeholder for a third SD.



> Bottom line the sub channel revenue is far more valuable to them than image quality. Let alone I doubt anyone from the station actually watches via OTA. Surely they subscribe to a one or another pay service.


Most of the pay services are using that same mux as their source, cable just dumps two ATSC-8VSB muxes to a single QAM. DirecTV and DISH compress and mux them again, often from the antenna feed, so god knows what the looks like unless they have some super duper video processing magic that they apply in the middle and maybe go from crap to mediocre, but there's only so much you can do. I had heard that a few stations hand off HD-SDI feeds to DirecTV, but I've also heard that DirecTV receives most of their local channels via OTA antennas, so I'm guessing most channels in most markets are actually worse than the OTA broadcasts.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

Bigg said:


> DirecTV and DISH compress and mux them again, often from the antenna feed, so god knows what the looks like unless they have some super duper video processing magic that they apply in the middle and maybe go from crap to mediocre, but there's only so much you can do.


All I know is when ABC went dead (via their antenna) all of their other delivery systems weren't affected. If they weren't I'm guessing it wouldn't have been days. Back in the day (years ago) I checked via Windows Media Center/HDHomeRun and I never saw double digit Mbps for any of the majors.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Charles R said:


> All I know is when ABC went dead (via their antenna) all of their other delivery systems weren't affected. If they weren't I'm guessing it wouldn't have been days. Back in the day (years ago) I checked via Windows Media Center/HDHomeRun and I never saw double digit Mbps for any of the majors.


They must have direct fiber feeds. It depends on the station and market. In Boston, one of the major station's transmitters broke, and it took several days to get the crew that can climb such a tall tower and do the work. Because of that, it was discovered that only Comcast and Verizon have fiber feeds, Charter, RCN, DirecTV, DISH, and others were relying on OTA antennas to pick it up, so they all went dark until the transmitter was back online. The bitrates also depend on your market. My local NBC is sharing with Telemundo now, and ABC is sharing with MyTV I think, so both are crap, and some others are loaded to the gills with subchannels, but FOX, CBS, and PBS are all low double digits. PBS and FOX look great, CBS somehow still looks pretty crappy, but they are a highly incompetent affiliate and always have been (WFSB-DT).


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> Ooh, cool, I'm a snob.
> 
> Actually, I just like the TiVo peanut remote and lotsa trickplay.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Worf said:


> Well, plenty of people still buy DVDs, of all things. I've seen people complain when they're forced to buy the Blu-Ray version of a movie about paying for something they won't use (because the Blu-Ray comes with the DVD). And those people generally actually only have DVD players.
> 
> Yes, DVD sales are still consistently bigger than Blu-Ray sales, so people are feeling that standard def is "good enough". And the price difference isn't gigantic - a few bucks would get you a high-def copy on Blu-Ray. (And they probably have a player - Blu-Ray players aren't expensive - while they still make DVD players, they generally cost about the same now - you aren't spending more than $20 at the low end).
> 
> Of course, my cable provider has done it different - on their current boxes, if you enter the channel number, it'll get you the HD version of the channel - they remapped the HD channels to the SD equivalents. Personally I can't stand those boxes because the remapping means what I normally use for the high-def channels doesn't work anymore. When you're used to tuning to 211 for the high def version of a channel, going back to entering the SD channel number is just a huge mess. If they kept both so those of used to the "old" channel scheme and allowed the remap, that would solve so many problems


Every time I buy a UHD BD, I am always pissed that it includes the 2K BDs with it. I wish they would have a version that cost a few dollars less that did not include the 2K BD. So i guess I know how the DVD users feel?

I stopped buying DVDs thirteen years ago. In anticipation of the BD/HD DVD launch in 2006. And I stopped buying 2K BDs in February 2016. When the UHD BD titles and players first came out.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

There's a new update for the FireStick 4K that improves Fire Recast DVR options. The big thing I noticed is that it's displaying channel numbers now, not just the name.

So if you have a 4K Stick- ping it in settings/devices to update.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Every time I buy a UHD BD, I am always pissed that it includes the 2K BDs with it. I wish they would have a version that cost a few dollars less that did not include the 2K BD. So i guess I know how the DVD users feel?
> 
> I stopped buying DVDs thirteen years ago. In anticipation of the BD/HD DVD launch in 2006. And I stopped buying 2K BDs in February 2016. When the UHD BD titles and players first came out.


The cost to add a BD is a few cents, and if, for some reason, the UHD BD is damaged, I can still play back the BD. Or if a friend who doesn't have UHD BD wants to play it at their place, we can. Not that I've ever actually used either of those use cases, but they really don't bother me.

There is still a lot of content that's not available on UHD BD or even BD, so I still buy DVDs and BDs occasionally, but I definitely favor content that's available on UHD BD.


----------



## kkoh (Mar 31, 2017)

Christmas pricing... 189.99/229.99: fireTV recast


----------



## kkoh (Mar 31, 2017)

or is that the usual pricing?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

kkoh said:


> Christmas pricing... 189.99/229.99: fireTV recast





kkoh said:


> or is that the usual pricing?


Prices were higher when it first came out. IIRC they were lowered for Cyber Monday weekend and now for Christmas. They've been lower for more time than higher. Hopefully will remain lower.


----------



## mrmulliner (Jul 17, 2009)

kkoh said:


> Christmas pricing... 189.99/229.99: fireTV recast


Or, if you shop at a Best Buy where they aren't paying attention when they put their price tags on the shelf, you get a 1TB Recast for $189.99.


----------



## kkoh (Mar 31, 2017)

mrmulliner said:


> Or, if you shop at a Best Buy where they aren't paying attention when they put their price tags on the shelf, you get a 1TB Recast for $189.99.


Only time will tell if that's a win


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

NashGuy said:


> It'll be interesting to see what T-Mobile does here, starting in 2019. They're saying they want to become a major home broadband provider (via fixed 5G) and plan to offer the service (along with the upcoming OTT live TV service) to rural areas.
> 
> T-Mobile details 5G home broadband plan to undercut Charter and Comcast





redrouteone said:


> I am really looking forward to the rollout of 5G. In my areas the choice is overpriced cable from Suddenlink or slow overpriced DSL from AT&T.
> 
> The 100Mbps they mention would be more fast enough for me. Hopefully it will come in at about $50/month.





NashGuy said:


> Yeah. If T-Mo can offer reliable standalone internet service at symmetrical 100Mbps speeds for $50/month, regular price, no contracts, no caps, equipment included, they'll do some serious damage to cable. Starry offers that (but at 200Mbps) for $50, although they're very limited in their rollout and will likely never scale to the degree that T-Mo will.





redrouteone said:


> I am really looking forward to the rollout of 5G. In my areas the choice is overpriced cable from Suddenlink or slow overpriced DSL from AT&T.
> 
> The 100Mbps they mention would be more fast enough for me. Hopefully it will come in at about $50/month.


Well here is one early indication of 5G pricing.

AT&T Brings 5G Service to U.S. on Dec. 21, 2018



> Early adopters will be the first to experience the NETGEAR® Nighthawk 5G Mobile Hotspot on our mobile 5G+ network. 5G+ is built to provide a mobile 5G experience over mmWave spectrum, businesses and consumers our first mobile 5G device plus 5G data usage at no cost for at least 90 days. *Next spring, customers will be able to get the Nighthawk for $499 upfront and 15GB of data for $70 a month on a compatible plan and no annual commitment.*1


OK maybe this isn't going to be a typical fixed 5G service, since it is a rather pricey mobile hotspot service plan.

But good chance they'll cap it to something like 1 TB if they're intent on charging $70 for 15 GB on the same network.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wco81 said:


> OK maybe this isn't going to be a typical fixed 5G service, since it is a rather pricey mobile hotspot service plan.
> 
> But good chance they'll cap it to something like 1 TB if they're intent on charging $70 for 15 GB on the same network.


Verizon's 5G is fixed and is Unlimited. It remains to be seen how the market develops.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

That's great to hear.


----------



## kkoh (Mar 31, 2017)

wco81 said:


> Well here is one early indication of 5G pricing.
> 
> OK maybe this isn't going to be a typical fixed 5G service, since it is a rather pricey mobile hotspot service plan.
> 
> But good chance they'll cap it to something like 1 TB if they're intent on charging $70 for 15 GB on the same network.


The way that's worded it almost seems like you're saying that it's $70 for 15GB of data...


----------



## kkoh (Mar 31, 2017)

In fact from the linked article it is similarly worded as, "...and 15GB of data for $70 a month on a compatible plan and no annual commitment."

Again, that could be easily taken to mean that your first 15GB costs $70... but I hope not.


----------



## eherberg (Feb 17, 2011)

What? Mobile companies who are deploying 5G internet look like they have outrageous per/GB pricing?

The hell you say ...

I mean -- they have such a rich history of accessible data pricing ...


----------



## kkoh (Mar 31, 2017)

I think the point is that if they want to compete... that's not how to do it.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

kkoh said:


> In fact from the linked article it is similarly worded as, "...and 15GB of data for $70 a month on a compatible plan and no annual commitment."
> 
> Again, that could be easily taken to mean that your first 15GB costs $70... but I hope not.


I guess for mobile devices, they will impose a premium.

But as noted, home fixed 5G, using the same network, has uncapped for the same $70?

What would be the difference exactly? You access the network through a SIM card in some mobile device vs. some access point or a home router for the fixed home service?

That's how they will discriminate on price?

Then again, if they don't do that, why wouldn't people just use their 5G phones with unlimited service and then use at home as a hotspot and connect everything in the home to it?

Wasn't there initially some unlimited data plans when LTE first was deployed and then they slowly clawed that back and now, they're offering "unlimited" mobile plans with throttling after like 20-30 GB of data and limited tethering speeds.

So maybe they will be more generous at the beginning and then if demand is strong, they will start imposing soft or hard caps.


----------

