- Related Stories
-
Study: Home networking to hit home
July 6, 2006 -
Tech companies prepare for digital home
May 5, 2006 -
Can a new hard drive meet the flash challenge?
April 3, 2006 -
Verizon's TV dreams
October 13, 2005
After a long week of interviews and writing stories, I was excited to hunker down in my living room one Friday night to see who had gotten booted off that week's "Project Runway." I flipped through the list of recorded programs on my digital video recorder and there was nothing.
How could this be? I knew for certain I had clicked on the "record the series" button.
Cisco Systems
I scrolled further and realized that it wasn't just "Project Runway" that was missing. That week's entire lineup of "The Daily Show," as well as the latest episode of "Entourage," were nowhere to be found.
I was upset, to say the least. This was the second DVR I had gotten from Time Warner since I signed up for the service in January. The previous box kept freezing and rebooting itself.
I looked online and discovered blogs full of complaints regarding the Scientific Atlanta 8000, the box Time Warner had given me not once, but twice. The whole debacle got me thinking about how complicated even the most basic things like watching television have gotten.
While I love how the DVR changed my life--letting me watch my favorite shows whenever I want and fast-forward through commercials--I was in love with it only when it worked. Because when it didn't work, I wanted to throw the whole thing out my window.
In a rush to give consumers more features, cable operators, satellite providers and phone companies are asking device makers to pack more complex capabilities into each box. Today, set-top boxes resemble a home PC more than they do a simple channel-changing cable box designed to do only three things: turn on, turn off, tune channels. Inevitably, these increasingly complicated devices are less reliable and harder to use than their predecessors.
"I would agree that things have gotten too complicated," said Kip Compton, director of business development for Cisco Systems, which now owns Scientific-Atlanta (in fairness, my DVR was made before Cisco bought the company). "Competition is driving operators to offer more features more quickly, and often that comes at the expense of increasing complexity. But it's a balancing act that the industry is trying to manage to keep up with the demand for more features while at the same time building simpler interfaces and reliable products."
Making networks intelligent
Some people in the industry suggest that instead of building more features into consumer devices, service providers and device makers should push more of the complexity into the network, so consumers are shielded from it.
The traditional telephone network is a good example of such a network. Circuit-switched telephony is by no means simple, but to the end user, picking up a phone and getting a dial tone is as simple as simple gets. And it's extremely reliable. Phone networks are designed to guarantee the network will be down no more than five minutes per year.
Some television providers have already begun exploring this concept. In March, Cablevision announced plans to test a new digital video recording service that allowed users to record and manage content through their existing set-top boxes, which would access a network-based DVR housed miles away in a Cablevision office.
The network-based DVR could save Cablevision tons of money, because company won't have to deploy and manage sophisticated devices in every subscriber's home. And subscribers wouldn't have to deal with the headache of boxes that reboot or fail altogether. But content owners quickly responded with threats of legal action, citing concerns over protecting copyright material. As a result, Cablevision put its test on hold until the digital rights management issues can be worked out, the company said.
In stark contrast to Cablevision's approach, Microsoft is selling its Media Center software that turns PCs into central repositories for all digital photos, music and video. Once hooked up to a TV, the software allows users to use their PC as a DVR to record, store and search content on their hard drives.
See more CNET content tagged:
DVR, Cablevision Systems Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., device manufacturer, set-top box







Yeeeeeaaaahhhhh.....Cause I want a Verizon Tech snooping around my home network or on my PC.
Thanks but no thanks. I just hope they don't come to me one day and say you must use Router X or Y because they conform to our "remote monitoring standards".
from a cable company snooping on my home network
-- much less being able to do anything to it. I
have considerably more knowledge about computer
networks that anyone I have ever met or spoken
to from my provider and I would much prefer to
eschew their incompetence.
I upgraded that with a larger one from weaknees.com.
The best computer based dvr I've found is from elgato.com. Load
the software, plug in the tuner, and your Mac becomes one of the
slickest dvr's I've seen.
Tivo was foolish to wait this long to offer HD support. I will belive a HD Tivo when I see it.
beat the pants of any cable-company budget DVR.
It's reliable, simple to use, expandable, and
even hackable (simple PPC-based Linux computer)
That said, with TiVO, you still relinquish most
control of the device and service. That is to
say, it will cost you and you don't know how
much in the future, AND it's feature set changes
from time to time with software updates -- which
is ominous since TiVO is constantly under
pressure from industry organizations that are
looking for ways to squash it. Even if TiVO
doesn't get squashed, there's the possibility it
might change to the point of being an onus.
If you want to go to the next level, you build
your own. There are plenty of DVR packages for
the big-three operating systems with loads of
features, active development, and tons of
support. Most are as easy to use as TiVO and
just (even more) satisfying.
Now I have the Time Warner DVR. While being able to get the digital features and such makes me happy, the interface makes me want to light the thing on fire. If TiVo could solve the drawbacks listed above I would switch back in a heartbeat, but that is simply not going to happen without a significant push for a technology like CableCard.
Not to mention, a NON-Microsoft PVR is the best solution if you want your view habits to remain private.
PC PVR's are good does not matter which way you go. Sure VISTA may use copy writ protection to make sure you can't boot leg copies of shows around. I'm not sure I'm 100% against that, or why some would consider it an issue.
But the isseus with PC PVR's tends to be around the HD world.
Sure there are lots of off air HD Tunner cards but if you want the content from your provider, be prepared to put out a ton of cash on a Componenet Video Capture card, and be prepared to write your own drivers.
I have tired MythTv, Sage, and BeyondTV. And they are all great for the basic cable PVR.
Again though research ahead of time make sure your IR blaster supports your set top box.
My biggest frustration was to find that my Box was listed as supported but the IR blaster that came with my 150 card had the wrong LED, and I had to change it out to make it work with my Starchoice405 box.
But then I though why not use the UIRT, and control both my starchoice and my Directtv box? Only to find the UIRT did not support my H20-300 box. And I spent a day messing around to make it work.
all in all I spent about 40-60 hours of work to make my Pc PVR work, in the end I went with Sage, and with a Windows based platform just due to support, and driver issues.
Yes I know I could have written my own drivers. But simple reality is the packages out there are not ready for the mass market. Driver issues, configuration issues, technical issues. Make it a project that your average PC user will not have the desire or capability to handle.
I'm holding out with the Vista promise for the Card II support which should make many issues go away.
If unstable technology were the reason why cable co's DVRs are so unreliable, then why is my ReplayTV -- built in 2000 -- still running fine with 100% reliability, never once missing a show?
Because ReplayTV and TiVo are DVR companies. These companies spent the time, resources, and management focus on delivering an absolutely fantastic user experience from a set-top box perspective.
CableCo management is based on network technology, content acquisition and licensing, and customer service. They essentially outsource all of the DVR components in their business strategy: My Comcast DVR is Motorola, with the GUI built by TVGuide.
If something isn't "core" to your business model, you outsource. Thusly, these CableCos clearly don't see DVRs as their core business (yet).
Once they do, they will either more effectively manage these external vendors, or buy them up to ensure that their brands are effectively represented through the DVR GUI.
I know that if I ran Comcast's set-top box strategy, I would convince executive management that the DVR is where the brand touches the consumer -- and thusly requires additional investment in oversight, standards, and rigor in managing these vendors.
So, let's not let CableCo's off the hook because "technology" is getting more complex. Let's demand that they deliver what they're promising... and threaten to hold back our monthly payments when said services don't live up to their hype.
Only then will management get the financial incentive to invest more in the DVR experience.
The current generation of cable DVR is a step backward. The guides and navigation are slow and unresponsive, the recordings are less reliable, the boxes crash or need rebooting often, and once you try to use networked pay-per-view the network is sometimes too busy and you get a denial of service.
I have both TIVO and cable DVR, TIVO wins hands down on all aspects.
The future generation that the cable companies are trying to push to save $$$, where almost everything would be on the network, would be an even bigger step backward as far as customer experience. It will be even slower, even less responsive, even less reliable, etc.
You are right that the old telephony system embedded all the intelligence in the network and was quite successful. But remember, it was a snail paced evolution over 100 years.
In your case, I suspect if network based DVR would really solve the problem. You just need better software on your DVR.
No, we need a standard way to let DVR's manage cable just like you can buy any phone and plug it in, and it works. I've been reading about CableCard which is supposed to solve this mess, but I have no idea when it will be readily available, or when supporting devices will be out.
Until then I guess I'll still have to "work the TV" for my wife.
I had a RebootTV er... ReplayTV for a couple of years. It was great when it worked, and sucked when it locked up and I had to unplug and plug it back in to reboot it.
I finally created my own media PC running Windows XP (I'd sooner douse myself in oil and set myself ablaze than upgrade to Vista when it comes out so I'll stick with XP). I bought a program called SageTV which gives me all of the DVR functionality I need without having to pay a subscription to access programming information.
I can view photos, listen to mp3s, browse the web and watch, record, and pause television video from the same box - all without Tivo or ReplayTV keeping track of my viewing habits which I think it none of their business anyway.
The only pain to all of this is that many satellite and cable decoder boxes don't have a way for a computer to interface with it to change the channel. For this, I use an IRBlaster.
MythTV is a open source Linux app. A lot more technical knowledge is required to set it up, but it seems to be the more mature product: even to today's commerical DVR boxes.
As far as interface goes, however, you're out of your mind. TiVo has the best most logical interface you'd think Apple designed it. ReplayTV's is good but not as good as TiVo. But the cable dvr interface might as well be a DOS interface as primitive as it is. For the life of me I can't figure out why they didn't license code from either of the real DVR companies. It's embarrassing how bad their software is...
Anybody that quotes the spec sheet or pricing back in comparing Tivo to commodity DVRs has not used a Tivo. They just don't get Tivo's value. I've used both a cable DVR and Tivo, and Tivo wins hands-down every time.
P.S. if you are complaining about the few bucks extra per month for Tivo, perhaps you should look at your cable bill and see how much money you are already giving monthly to your cable provider. Does Tivo still look expensive compared to that?
As for improving the situation, the only thing that prevents Tivo from implementing a digital recording solution is the Cable Companies' lockdown on their signals and decoding of those signals. That is the sole reason why there are no digital, HD Digital, etc... Tivo boxes.
And as for your "kicker" about how Time Warner will replace your box if your cable DVR screws up - my TiVo has not had a single problem in the 5+ years I've owned it, not a single one. You only view the in-house service as a positive because you NEED it all the time with a cable DVR. I can't tell you how many time my brother's cable DVR has wiped all his shows or had other bizarre behavior, as reported in this article, which absolutely mystifies me. I mean, if TiVo could make a box that lasts for years with no problems in 2000, why can't the cable DVR people do it in 2006? I honestly don't understand.
Seriously, man, don't talk about what you don't know. If you've ever gone TiVo, you don't go back.
And yes, the DirecTV tivo is only $5.99 a month, records two channels at once, and has HD Tivo if you want it and have for years now.
You buy the equipment outright instead of leasing it. Just like my car, I'd rather own something rather then lease it.
The issues you have aren't with Tivo, it's with digital cable.
The other issue I had was signal strength. The picture looked fine but the strength caused problems with the box slowing down and crashing. They added a 2nd line and it solve this problem.
The only reason I use the DVR from my cable company is for HD recording. Satellite has this, however they charge a lot more for this ability.
Since our local company (Charter -- blech) started rolling out SA8300s, our HD and DVR service has been very stable. We have two boxes and they have run fine for just over a year.
In reality, I seriously doubt anyone would purchase an SA8300 if it was our choice -- they still lack a lot of features and their UI is badly stunted in many ways. Examples:
1) Scheduled recordings don't adjust to daylight savings time. If you have a program set to record every Tuesday at 9-10PM and a bi-annual DST change comes along, you're recording will either be an hour early or an hour late. LAME!!!
2) If you're watching a program that's currently being recorded and you're behind in time, the DVR will immediately shift you to live TV when the recording ends (even if you're still behind). This especially sucks when catching up on sporting events -- you're in the middle of the 4th quarter of an NBA playoff game (not knowing who won), then suddenly you're hearing post-game commentary and the final score. LAME!!!
3) Do you really need more examples? ;)
At least the SA8300 HD video quality is good and it the isn't too noisy (not too quiet either).
-MisterWinky
Until Tivo/ReplayTV/whoever offers a plan where you just send me a bill and I pay it, they'll always be second. It's totally convenience that I can simply call up Cox, say I want the thing, they ship it to me, and bill my account. No credit cards, no credit checks, no prescreens, no hooks. I don't like locking my plastic into some recurrent charge that I might get screwed on later (like them billing me $199.95 instead of $19.95, because Rep A wasn't paying attention when they typed in the price per month and added an extra 9. No thanks.)
So let's see I can call the cable company every 8-14 month wait 3 or 4 days (or Hassle with taking the stupid thing in) or have it work for as long as the harddrive lasts.
If only I hadn't moved I would still be enjoying my Timewarner service. Bleep it all to Bleep.
They revised it for a reason. Once you change it out you will see why.
I am happy I bought my Replay when I did and avoided all the tempormental DishPlayer/TimeWarner/etc... rebooting cruddy boxes.
I have a 160 GB drive in the Replay and it works great and will for years to come and haven't paid a cent for it since I bought it. Dunno why anyone would pay $10 a month to a cable company to 'use' one!
worst was that the legacy analog channels would barely record.
More often than not the recording should show the same start and
stop time with no actual content recorded. I had Time Warner
change out the unit for a model 8300 after demonstrating the
problem to them. It has been much improved and I rarely lose a
recording on it. It also has much more memory ( 112 Mb vs 48 Mb
on the 8000) and has faster processors ( 250 MHz vs 164 MHz on
the 8000).
- TIVO is King!
- by gpaulgar July 31, 2006 10:35 AM PDT
- Tivo would be on many more shelves if they had been better at cutting deals with others. It was SO SOLID when I used it on satellite several years ago. Recently tried a ComCast unit; not good, crashes frequently! Just went from cable to DirectTV; their DVR unit is TIVO-like, but squirelly. Now learning to live with its idiosyncracic behavior, e.g. don't ever power it off unless you want to do a POR later.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (108 Comments)Miss my TIVO! ??Perhaps I should buy one??