# cablevision has a 10 tuner dvr!!



## celtic pride (Nov 8, 2005)

wow! just read over at fierce cable website where cablevision now has a 10 tuner dvr that lets you record 10 shows at once!!! Makes me wish cablevision was available in my area! I hate to say it but tivo seems to be getting further and further behind.


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

celtic pride said:


> wow! just read over at fierce cable website where cablevision now has a 10 tuner dvr that lets you record 10 shows at once!!! Makes me wish cablevision was available in my area! I hate to say it but tivo seems to be getting further and further behind.


its not a "10 tuner dvr" its their regular sh*t box that will allow you to "record" 10 shows in the cloud. its software that tells their servers that you want to record the shows, it records on their end and held there until you play them. nothing is stored on your dvr or at your premises.

its DVR +, the two tuner version they've had for a few years now, and it barely works.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

celtic pride said:


> wow! just read over at fierce cable website where cablevision now has a 10 tuner dvr that lets you record 10 shows at once!!! Makes me wish cablevision was available in my area! I hate to say it but tivo seems to be getting further and further behind.


You did get that they are talking about a "network" DVR not an actual physical DVR in someone's home right? And what cable company has had an actual 4 tuner DVR for almost 2 years like TiVo? - Let me help you out none that I know of.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Not cable, but for all practical purposes, DISH, since it uses 1 tuner to record all of the broadcast channels -- which get far higher ratings than most cable shows. Even though I have cable, and have Premiere 4 that requires cable, most of what I watch is from broadcast channels. (I originally got cable long ago since I would have to turn the antenna 180 degrees to get one of the channels I wanted, which of course made unattended recording effectively impossible -- yes I could have theoretically rigged it on a timer or something.)


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

mattack said:


> Not cable, but for all practical purposes, DISH, since it uses 1 tuner to record all of the broadcast channels


Only for 3 hours a day (4 on Sunday) during prime time.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

celtic pride said:


> wow! just read over at fierce cable website where cablevision now has a 10 tuner dvr that lets you record 10 shows at once!!! Makes me wish cablevision was available in my area! I hate to say it but tivo seems to be getting further and further behind.


No big deal. My HTPC has had 17 tuners for quite a while that can record to the hard drive (and it actually works quite well  ).


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Aero 1 said:


> its not a "10 tuner dvr" its their regular sh*t box that will allow you to "record" 10 shows in the cloud. its software that tells their servers that you want to record the shows, it records on their end and held there until you play them. nothing is stored on your dvr or at your premises.
> 
> its DVR +, the two tuner version they've had for a few years now, and it barely works.


So lets take the crappiness of the actual box out of the equation and just consider the cloud aspect.

Good, no?

With a decent internet connection (and no data caps), this seems like a good idea instead of having 300+ hours of content stored on one local hard drive.


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

andyw715 said:


> So lets take the crappiness of the actual box out of the equation and just consider the cloud aspect.
> 
> Good, no?
> 
> With a decent internet connection (and no data caps), this seems like a good idea instead of having 300+ hours of content stored on one local hard drive.


i dont think so. what if your internet connection goes down for a long period of time? you wont be able to watch your recordings. what if cablevision CO has issues and cant record the shows for you? also, i am not sure if these recordings are delivered to you via IP or QAM, but what if its IP and its 8 pm and the node is saturated. you're going to have fun trying to FF a commercial.

its a neat idea and step forward, but as someone who used to have cablevision before Fios came along, let me tell you, CV is not known for their stellar network.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I'd surmise that rather than actually recording ten shows and storing them for you online it's actually just putting the shows in a VOD queue and allowing you to access them at your leisure. Chances are they'll end up highly compressed to conserve space and bandwidth for streaming. It's ridiculous to think that they would actually make separate recordings of a show that may get hundreds of requests to record. When they get the request it will be added to the list of shows to be processed and placed on the VOD server. The list of requested shows will show up somewhere under your name with a link to retrieve them for viewing.


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'd surmise that rather than actually recording ten shows and storing them for you online it's actually just putting the shows in a VOD queue and allowing you to access them at your leisure. Chances are they'll end up highly compressed to conserve space and bandwidth for streaming. It's ridiculous to think that they would actually make separate recordings of a show that may get hundreds of requests to record. When they get the request it will be added to the list of shows to be processed and placed on the VOD server. The list of requested shows will show up somewhere under your name with a link to retrieve them for viewing.


they make actual recordings for the user when it is requested and only used for that user. thats how they won the court battle, read the case.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Surprisingly my DSL and Cable internet connections at my house are very reliable - more so than my TiVo HD + Tuning adaptor 

If I had to buffer 10-15% of a recording prior to viewing, I'd be ok with that.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Aero 1 said:


> they make actual recordings for the user when it is requested and only used for that user. thats how they won the court battle, read the case.


What court battle? What case? And what's it got to do with recording shows on a server? There has been no mention of any court battle so far in this thread.

Having shows available for VOD hasn't been an issue with providers AFAIK. Recording shows without compressing them for streaming to the end user is an unlikely scenario without having a huge amount of bandwidth available. I don't have the actual facts so I'm just making assumptions based on common sense and the way providers tend to do business. Recording the same show hundreds or even thousands of times for individual accounts seems pretty farfetched to me.


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

mr.unnatural said:


> What court battle? What case? And what's it got to do with recording shows on a server? There has been no mention of any court battle so far in this thread.
> 
> Having shows available for VOD hasn't been an issue with providers AFAIK. Recording shows without compressing them for streaming to the end user is an unlikely scenario without having a huge amount of bandwidth available. I don't have the actual facts so I'm just making assumptions based on common sense and the way providers tend to do business. Recording the same show hundreds or even thousands of times for individual accounts seems pretty farfetched to me.


just because it wasnt mentioned in this thread, it doesnt mean they werent sued.

http://betanews.com/2009/06/29/cabl...-court-denies-appeal-of-cablevision-decision/

you surmised that they would not record each individual show for each user and thought it would be ridiculous, then you surmised that instead the show is served up like VOD.

the way their DVR works is:



> In contrast, RS-DVR (Remote Storage Digital Video Recorder) refers to a service where a subscriber can record a program and store it on the network. A stored program is only available to the person who recorded it. Should any two persons record the same program, it must for legal reasons be recorded and stored as separate copies. Essentially implementing a traditional DVR with network based storage.


the outcome:



> On August 5, 2008, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., reversed the lower court decision that found the use of RS-DVRs in violation of copyright law.[1] It agreed with Cablevision's argument that a RS-DVR should be treated essentially the same as a customer owned DVR. Only the location of the DVR really differs.[2]
> 
> Certain content providers began the process of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking cert in late 2008. The Supreme Court delayed hearing the case and instead referred it to the United States Solicitor General's office for the federal government's opinion on the case. In June 2009 the US Supreme Court refused to hear a final appeal in the Cablevision remote DVR case, thereby bringing the years-long litigation to a close.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_DVR#Cablevision_litigation_in_the_U.S.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

scandia101 said:


> Only for 3 hours a day (4 on Sunday) during prime time.


Actually, that short period you refer to is for the Prime Time Anytime feature. However, even outside of Prime Time, Dish Hoppers do USE ONE tuner for simultaneously providing all the big 4 nets at any time for live viewing or recording. So, if I want to record/watch (or anyone else in the household) programming on my local big net affiliates, I can record Dr. Oz, Judge Judy, and 2 local newscasts--4 programs each on a big 4 affiliate--simultaneously using ONE sat tuner. This can be done 24/7 separate from the Prime Time Anytime feature.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

scandia101 said:


> Only for 3 hours a day (4 on Sunday) during prime time.


I know, but again, I think "for all practical purposes", that's what the majority of people care about.
That's an opinion of course, I have nothing to back it up with. Heck, even cable channels air their new airings during prime time (but of course they RERUN the heck out of them, which is good and thus helps lessen the tuner requirement.)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Series3Sub said:


> Actually, that short period you refer to is for the Prime Time Anytime feature. However, even outside of Prime Time, Dish Hoppers do USE ONE tuner for simultaneously providing all the big 4 nets at any time for live viewing or recording. So, if I want to record/watch (or anyone else in the household) programming on my local big net affiliates, I can record Dr. Oz, Judge Judy, and 2 local newscasts--4 programs each on a big 4 affiliate--simultaneously using ONE sat tuner. This can be done 24/7 separate from the Prime Time Anytime feature.


Oh, then my other response may be wrong then.

Do you mean you are picking shows 'individually'? I did think it was only PTA that had that 'feature', and it was only AFTERWARDS that you could "pick out" specific shows to save (not be auto-wiped by the circular queue of 1 week of PTA).

In other words, I could swear I've read that if you tried to have the equivalent of season passes on multiple network stations, it would try to use separate tuners for them. Maybe that was only originally, and has since changed..


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

mattack said:


> Oh, then my other response may be wrong then.
> 
> Do you mean you are picking shows 'individually'? I did think it was only PTA that had that 'feature', and it was only AFTERWARDS that you could "pick out" specific shows to save (not be auto-wiped by the circular queue of 1 week of PTA).
> 
> In other words, I could swear I've read that if you tried to have the equivalent of season passes on multiple network stations, it would try to use separate tuners for them. Maybe that was only originally, and has since changed..


OK, I think the confusion is this: When the Hopper first came out, it did use ONE tuner for each big 4 net local outside of PTAT. However, for almost a year now, Dish changed it so that ALL viewers or recordings will share ONE tuner for all big 4 nets at any time 24/7.

For example: I am viewing KABC; the kid in the other room is viewing KNBC, and a recording is taking place on KCBS. All of those viewings and recordings are using the SAME ONE tuner. This leaves me with 2 sat tuners and one OTA (if the module is added) available for use. This is 24/7 and is NOT dependent on PTAT.

This is taking advantage of the fact that the big 4 nets in all DMA's are on the same spotbeam transponder, so all the data is their in the stream anyway. It is interesting that it took this long for them to leverage that situation that has existed for over a decade.

The one loss is that Dish saw fit to provide only ONE OTA tuner for each Hopper. Now, if you have 2 Hoppers, than one could use the OTA tuner on the other Hopper, but this is a loss compared to Dish's ViP's that provided TWO OTA tuners.

A bit off topic, but the 9th Circuit upheld the lower courts decision NOT to disable Auto-hop (the commercial skipping feature), during the lawsuit filed by the big 4, and in that ruling stated some pretty clear indications that the networks are going to LOSE on this one. It is rumored that DirecTV has their own commercial skip feature already set to go, but are waiting for the developments in the court cases before they release it, if ever.

Further, it would be great if TiVo had such a feature waiting in the wings, but considering how TiVo has been a major MSO colon crawler from day one, it probably isn't likely that TiVo will ever offer a commercial skip feature.

The 9th circuit ruling is fascinating reading and it is clear Dish lawyers had this one figured out to the T.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Aero 1 said:


> just because it wasnt mentioned in this thread, it doesnt mean they werent sued.


The point being that you mentioned it out of the blue and didn't provide a link or explain the context with regards to the discussion at hand. Everybody sues everybody else these days so that's not exactly news. Why they were sued would have been nice to know at the outset since it described the reason why recordings were being made on an individual basis for each subscriber. I was making a rational assumption without knowing anything about the legal issues that backed your claim.

With that in mind, the amount of storage required to support this method of recording could get out of hand in a hurry. Again, I can only assume that the end user will be charged extra for this service. It's probably buried in the rental charge for the box, but it could also be based on the amount of storage the customer uses per month as well.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Aero 1 said:


> just because it wasnt mentioned in this thread, it doesnt mean they werent sued.
> 
> http://betanews.com/2009/06/29/cabl...-court-denies-appeal-of-cablevision-decision/
> 
> ...


This is what the BoxeeTV did. All recordings were stored in the cloud for each individual user. It did work. I made dozens of recordings each week and they were all stored in the cloud. But the DVR service never made it out of beta and was shut down when Samsung bought Boxee.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

A more recent ruling, regarding Cablevision, I believe, AFFIRMED that recording must be stored as a separate recording for each subscriber and explicitly refused to allow a one recording for all service as that would be VOD and NOT a DVR-type service. Further, such recordings MUST be initiated by the user, etc.

Essentially, this is goes back to Universal vs. Sony, and the crux is "Fair Use" and there must be attributes of the personal home use of the technology as we knew it with the VCR. As long as such attributes are present, it is considered under "Fair Use" and MVPD's and consumers need not worry.

We are not likely to see in our lifetime any cloud DVR service with a one recording for all model, as this was explicitly verboten by the courts, meaning more than one court.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

andyw715 said:


> So lets take the crappiness of the actual box out of the equation and just consider the cloud aspect.
> 
> Good, no?
> 
> With a decent internet connection (and no data caps), this seems like a good idea instead of having 300+ hours of content stored on one local hard drive.


Maybe, maybe not - what if they compress the crap out of it to avoid using too much of your bandwidth? What if their servers are down, or flaky for a few days (this happened a couple of months ago with Comcast's X1 DVRs)? And more importantly, what if their DVRs prevent you from skipping commercials?

Cloud always sounds good on the surface but when you consider the control over your recordings that you're giving up, the tradeoff might not be worth it. You have no ability to save anything locally (for use on tablets, phones, etc.) for example.


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

aaronwt said:


> This is what the BoxeeTV did. All recordings were stored in the cloud for each individual user. It did work. I made dozens of recordings each week and they were all stored in the cloud. But the DVR service never made it out of beta and was shut down when Samsung bought Boxee.


Which shows the biggest problem with cloud recording. Those recordings aren't actually yours. And yes, I know that those recordings are never technically yours. But having them on your hdd's makes it pretty hard for someone to come along and take them away.


----------



## XIBM (Mar 9, 2013)

Series3Sub said:


> A more recent ruling, regarding Cablevision, I believe, AFFIRMED that recording must be stored as a separate recording for each subscriber and explicitly refused to allow a one recording for all service as that would be VOD and NOT a DVR-type service. Further, such recordings MUST be initiated by the user, etc.
> 
> Essentially, this is goes back to Universal vs. Sony, and the crux is "Fair Use" and there must be attributes of the personal home use of the technology as we knew it with the VCR. As long as such attributes are present, it is considered under "Fair Use" and MVPD's and consumers need not worry.
> 
> We are not likely to see in our lifetime any cloud DVR service with a one recording for all model, as this was explicitly verboten by the courts, meaning more than one court.


I would like to know technically how the court could inspect and enforce this as the actual way it functions could be buried deep in some programming code. To the user and observer it could look like it was your own copy of what you requested to be recorded. For instance a disk optimization cloud operating system program could be written to examine recordings and if they were identical to eliminate the duplicates by just managing the disk table of contents and all the application code would indicate everyone had there own copy...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

XIBM said:


> I would like to know technically how the court could inspect and enforce this as the actual way it functions could be buried deep in some programming code. To the user and observer it could look like it was your own copy of what you requested to be recorded. For instance a disk optimization cloud operating system program could be written to examine recordings and if they were identical to eliminate the duplicates by just managing the disk table of contents and all the application code would indicate everyone had there own copy...


The key word is identical as in I start my recording 1 minute early or how much over time do I program in for a given sports show, or any other show. Take the CBS 60 minutes program in football season, I add 1 hour to 60 minutes and any show that follows that evening that I may want to watch. What happens when our president interrupts a program because we killed someone important or any other reason, that the time I use OD to get the last part of the program.


----------



## vurbano (Apr 20, 2004)

andyw715 said:


> So lets take the crappiness of the actual box out of the equation and just consider the cloud aspect.
> 
> Good, no?
> 
> With a decent internet connection (and no data caps), this seems like a good idea instead of having 300+ hours of content stored on one local hard drive.


Id sure like it. Then the ability to have the ones I want to keep permanently placed on my hard drive.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

You won't get that ability in the cloud IMO, because they'll use the cloud as a way to get control back.


----------



## XIBM (Mar 9, 2013)

lessd said:


> The key word is identical as in I start my recording 1 minute early or how much over time do I program in for a given sports show, or any other show. Take the CBS 60 minutes program in football season, I add 1 hour to 60 minutes and any show that follows that evening that I may want to watch. What happens when our president interrupts a program because we killed someone important or any other reason, that the time I use OD to get the last part of the program.


Even if you take all the different possible recording options for 60 minutes which would be maybe 20 different possible copies, it is much less than say 20,000 users recording and storing the same show (maybe 1000 times)....


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

The real question is whether you'll be able to skip past commercials on any recordings stored in the cloud. I'm just guessing here, but if they compress the programs to reduce storage and bandwidth requirements then playback would probably end up being like any other streamed content. You have to sit through the entire 60 minutes to watch a show instead of watching just the 42 minutes or so of actual programming. I really don't see any advantage to this type of setup for the customer.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

XIBM said:


> Even if you take all the different possible recording options for 60 minutes which would be maybe 20 different possible copies, it is much less than say 20,000 users recording and storing the same show (maybe 1000 times)....


Storage isn't the issue, network traffic is. You're sending it out 20,000 times vs. once.


----------



## XIBM (Mar 9, 2013)

lpwcomp said:


> Storage isn't the issue, network traffic is. You're sending it out 20,000 times vs. once.


On Demand requires this network traffic...


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

XIBM said:


> On Demand requires this network traffic...


Yes, but on Demand has a far lower utilization than this would, where essentially *everything* is on demand.


----------



## XIBM (Mar 9, 2013)

lpwcomp said:


> Yes, but on Demand has a far lower utilization than this would, where essentially *everything* is on demand.


What about Netflix, Amazon, Hulla, etc.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

XIBM said:


> What about Netflix, Amazon, Hulla, etc.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'd surmise that rather than actually recording ten shows and storing them for you online it's actually just putting the shows in a VOD queue and allowing you to access them at your leisure.


*Absolutely not.* Such a system would be technically simpler, but is illegal.

Cablevision won the court case in 2008 because they could show that all of the logical steps using the DVR service were the same as using a home VCR. That way they were covered under the Jan 17 1984 Supreme Court ruling that saved The VCR From Certain Death.

Aereo would have never proceeded with their business plan without the CableVision ruling. They reasoned that if DVR services were legal than they could add a personal remote antenna under the same legal principal.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

CableVision is now offering a 15 tuner DVR service,


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Hank said:


> CableVision is now offering a 15 tuner DVR service,


Is that to compete with Comcast and their 15 tuner X1 system. Three X1 boxes give you fifteen tuners. And Comcast has also been rolling out Cloud Storage for the recordings too.


----------



## timchi29 (Feb 26, 2005)

Regardless if it can record 10 shows at the same time...get out of the house!!


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Hank said:


> CableVision is now offering a 15 tuner DVR service,


More precisely, you can record 15 things simultaneously to your personal storage on their servers. No tuners involved.

Same munificent rolleyes 500GB of storage.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> Is that to compete with Comcast and their 15 tuner X1 system. Three X1 boxes give you fifteen tuners. And Comcast has also been rolling out Cloud Storage for the recordings too.


I have no idea.. I just dumped Cablevision for Verizon FIOS.. they tried to use this to keep me to stay "record up to 15 shows at once!!!"... I was like "who in their right mind would ever want to do that???"



timchi29 said:


> Regardless if it can record 10 shows at the same time...get out of the house!!


Yeah, this!!

I think the biggest conflict we've ever had in this house was Sunday night with The Walking Dead and Homeland being on at the same time.. and the TWO TUNER Verizon DVR took care of that no problem. Now we have a Roamio basic with four tuners.. one is taken with the Tivo Mini, but three tuners? I don't see ever using all three at one time. 10 tuners? Get out'a here.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

there are pcs with 18 tuners and a 8 tb drive


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I have 4 TiVos* with 14 HD tuners and 7.5TB of storage. My THD is connected to both cable and antenna. Plus I can offload to my PC.


* Not counting the Series 2 connected to a cable box.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> I have 4 TiVos* with 14 HD tuners and 7.5TB of storage. My THD is connected to both cable and antenna. Plus I can offload to my PC.
> 
> * Not counting the Series 2 connected to a cable box.


Relevance?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

A discussion about how many programs one home should record at once is a dumb discussion, like saying that paying over $30,000 for a new car is dumb, every family is different, I have 3 Roamios Plus and I guess my home could record 18 things at once, I don't think we ever have, but having 6 tuners has made programing much better as I can add time to say 60 minute and other CBS programs that night when a game in on CBS and not be concerned about any other stuff I may to also record that night, for this each to their own.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

lessd said:


> A discussion about how many programs one home should record at once is a dumb discussion, like saying that paying over $30,000 for a new car is dumb, every family is different, I have 3 Roamios Plus and I guess my home could record 18 things at once, I don't think we ever have, but having 6 tuners has made programing much better as I can add time to say 60 minute and other CBS programs that night when a game in on CBS and not be concerned about any other stuff I may to also record that night, for this each to their own.


Exactly. Everyone's viewing and recording habits are different. While my HTPC technically has access to 17 tuners (nine cablecard and eight ATSC), I rarely record more than 6 or 7 shows simultaneously. Five of the tuners are networked and shared between other HTPCs and used primarily for watching live TV on three separate HDTVs The rest are available for use on my primary HTPC, but I don't think all of them have ever been used simultaneously except once when I experimented to see how many I could record from at the same time. I believe I had up to 13 of them recording while watching another show that had previously been recorded, but that was done with an older configuration of tuners. The additional tuners are mostly there as a safety net in case I ever need a few extra. That's the benefit of using WMC instead of a Tivo. You can add all the tuners you want for only the cost of the hardware.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

mr.unnatural said:


> Exactly. Everyone's viewing and recording habits are different.


A gambler/mathematician always said to me it's not the mean that counts, it's the variance.

It's like the guy that buys an electric car that goes 73 miles on a full charge because your average person drives less than 50 miles per day. The variance can make that car owner's life into hell.

I just wasn't aware there was such a big demand out there for people who want to cover their extreme situations. I think the poster who said that the engineers who designed the mega-Tivo should have given more consideration to a 12 tuner model as that feature would be much more valued than 24 terabytes of storage.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> ...I rarely record more than 6 or 7 shows simultaneously...


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

gastrof said:


>


LOL. Just so you know, most of the simultaneous recordings are due to overlap and not simultaneous time slots. I pad everything by 10 minutes before and after to ensure I don't miss anything. Three shows airing in the 9-10PM time slot will overlap with three shows airing between 10 and 11PM by 20 minutes, resulting in six simultaneous recordings during that period. I don't think I've ever recorded more than four or five shows airing in the same time time slot between cable and network TV.

For some reason, many of the cable channels like to air their best shows in the same time slot as several of the shows I watch on network TV, resulting in a lot of shows being recorded at the same time. The nice thing is that I no longer have to pick and choose between shows airing at the same time like I used to due to a shortage of available tuners. OTOH, I have found that I usually have to limit my recordings to a maximum number of shows per week or I'll never have the time to watch them all.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

There is no practical use for a 15-tuner DVR, but that's not the point. CableVision and Verizon got into a pissing match, because they were trying to out-do each other without actually competing on price in the relatively affluent (well parts of it anyway) New York City market. CableVision just upped the limit to 10 tuners, which is basically a software parameter on a multicast IP network, in their Cloud DVR service in order to do something that Verizon couldn't that would sound cool in ads, cost CableVision almost nothing, and wasn't actually useful in real life with a wimpy 500GB of storage.

Well, Verizon got sucked into said pissing match, and made the 12-tuner Quantum DVR or whatever it's called. So CableVision, determined not to win the completely pointless DVR tuner pissing match, upped the limit to 15 tuners just to outdo Verizon's 2 6-tuner boxes. In the process, because Comcast competes with FIOS, primarily in Boston, Philly, and DC [metro areas], Comcast got sucked into this ridiculous pissing match, and in order to beat FIOS's 12 tuners, decided to roll out their kludge-on-a-kludge 15-tuner X1 that's made up of 3 X1 boxes.

The whole thing is ridiculous, as they are just trying to avoid actually competing on anything that anyone actually cares about, while being able to advertise that they have "more" than the other guy.


----------



## hytekjosh (Dec 4, 2010)

XIBM said:


> On Demand requires this network traffic...


Depends how on demand and cloud DVR are being delivered: IP versus QAM. I haven't read the specs on some of the major provider's cloud DVR offerings in a while but I'm pretty sure they will not impact one's internet bandwidth.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

I cant find many shows I like on tv anymore. since the history channel has become a reality TV channel



Bigg said:


> There is no practical use for a 15-tuner DVR, but that's not the point. CableVision and Verizon got into a pissing match, because they were trying to out-do each other without actually competing on price in the relatively affluent (well parts of it anyway) New York City market. CableVision just upped the limit to 10 tuners, which is basically a software parameter on a multicast IP network, in their Cloud DVR service in order to do something that Verizon couldn't that would sound cool in ads, cost CableVision almost nothing, and wasn't actually useful in real life with a wimpy 500GB of storage.
> 
> Well, Verizon got sucked into said pissing match, and made the 12-tuner Quantum DVR or whatever it's called. So CableVision, determined not to win the completely pointless DVR tuner pissing match, upped the limit to 15 tuners just to outdo Verizon's 2 6-tuner boxes. In the process, because Comcast competes with FIOS, primarily in Boston, Philly, and DC [metro areas], Comcast got sucked into this ridiculous pissing match, and in order to beat FIOS's 12 tuners, decided to roll out their kludge-on-a-kludge 15-tuner X1 that's made up of 3 X1 boxes.
> 
> The whole thing is ridiculous, as they are just trying to avoid actually competing on anything that anyone actually cares about, while being able to advertise that they have "more" than the other guy.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

tootal2 said:


> I cant find many shows I like on tv anymore. since the history channel has become a reality*scripted* TV channel


*FYP*

BTW, I totally agree.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

hytekjosh said:


> Depends how on demand and cloud DVR are being delivered: IP versus QAM. I haven't read the specs on some of the major provider's cloud DVR offerings in a while but I'm pretty sure they will not impact one's internet bandwidth.


They're QAM-based. XoD only uses IP on TiVo, where there is no upstream QAM path available.



tootal2 said:


> I cant find many shows I like on tv anymore. since the history channel has become a reality TV channel


And Discovery. Both used to be good channels. Now I find that most of the good content is either PBS or HBO, and then there's sports, and everything else I want to watch is either Netflix or Blu-rays.


----------

