Am I the Only One....

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

They only use it because of the experience it provides, which is ease of use, 99.999% reliablity, a fantastic picture and real time delivery if required. Internet video doesn't even come close today and I doubt it will in 15 years, let alone 5 years off.

I agree Internet TV is probably more than 5 years off, but I think we're a lot closer to it, at least technologically, than you think. I think part of the disconnect between me and bastafidli and you is that we have a very different idea of what Internet TV would be like than you do. You seem to think it would be like Hulu or Netflix streaming, while we're saying it would be a souped-up version of AT&T U-verse with Akamai-like caches spread all over the place. At least in the near term, you're not going to get an Internet provider and get your Internet TV from someone else. They're going to be, at least for all practical purposes, the same company.

It's difficult to make good reliability comparisons. Saying it's unreliable is sort of like comparing voice chat using AIM 10 years ago to telephones. Sure it wasn't as reliable, but now how many people can tell the difference between their VoIP telephone from their cable company and one from a traditional telephone provider?

Internet TV would need to work differently than Hulu/Netflix streaming to be reliable. You'd need some way of separating regular Internet traffic, which in general isn't very time-sensitive, from Internet TV traffic (cable companies dedicate a portion of their back-end bandwidth on VoIP). Or, at least you'd need some way of prioritizing Internet TV packets above others (one of the reasons net-neutrality is actually a bad thing).

Even with that, are you likely to get the same reliability as regular TV? Probably not, at least in the near future. But, I'm not sure that matters. If I'm right, and TV gets cached on individuals' boxes, then you can have significant network disruptions without necessarily interrupting viewing. I also think younger people are a little more tolerant of reliability problems. We're the generation that grew up with <<buffering...>>, and now we're dealing with only using cell phones despite the fact that they drop calls much more often than land lines.

I'll basically concede reliability is a major concern, but I actually don't think picture quality is going to be a limiting factor, and I don't see why live TV distribution would be a problem at all if you used multicast delivery.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I agree Internet TV is probably more than 5 years off, but I think we're a lot closer to it, at least technologically, than you think. I think part of the disconnect between me and bastafidli and you is that we have a very different idea of what Internet TV would be like than you do. You seem to think it would be like Hulu or Netflix streaming, while we're saying it would be a souped-up version of AT&T U-verse with Akamai-like caches spread all over the place. At least in the near term, you're not going to get an Internet provider and get your Internet TV from someone else. They're going to be, at least for all practical purposes, the same company.

That's not the point I am trying to make. I don't have any preconceived ideas about the architecture behind Internet TV, whether Hulu/Netflix-like streaming technology or Akamai-esque caches. All I am saying is that the end-user experiences is what matters, regardless of how you get that end user experience there, whether through streaming, caching, or any other technology. I could care less what or how the video is delivered. What everyone cares about is that they get what they want. I don't think that's jerky, hard-to-access, re-boot requiring, grainy video on a small screen. I'd love to be able to get rid of cable TV and get SageTV like capability on my HDTV through an internet pipe rather than cable TV and have the time-shifting, place-shifting, anything-want-on-demand ability of the internet coupled with the quality and reliability of cable TV and cable TV DVR's (whether time shifted or not). It will eventually happen, but it's a long long way off. And many of the reasons it is have nothing to do with technology but with other issues involving factors including but not limited to inertia, investment capital requirements, business remodelling and human nature.

With cell phones you are right that people use them even though they drop calls, etc. However, there is no other choice but to use a cell phone outside the home so that's not a fair comparison. For voice, It's either the cell phone or nothing. What people are willing to accept in terms of quality of experience is tiered depending on whether not it is email/text, audio or video. For text people are willing to accept a big delay in communication back and forth as that's integral to the system of communication. Send an email, wait, hear back. Sent a text message, wait, hear back. With voice a few dropped calls, some static, etc are acceptable, but not if you had the big delays that you do with text and email until you hear the person on the other end of the line respond. With video, the bar goes up higher. People want a good picture and they are not going to sit there watching a frozen screen or jerky grainy stuttering video. It's video after all. But, why do they watch shows time-shifted online? Because if you haven't recorded it on a PVR there is no other choice. Would they rather watch it in full HD on a big screen if they had the choice? Of course.

Anyway, we could go round and round. But I am not talking about what I particularly want. I am talking about what the market wants as a whole. I really don't think the market wants a poorer visual experience and that is what I think you guys are suggesting.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

I could care less what or how the video is delivered. What everyone cares about is that they get what they want. I don't think that's jerky, hard-to-access, re-boot requiring, grainy video on a small screen.

I don't understand why you think Internet TV has to result in any of those things.

It will eventually happen, but it's a long long way off. And many of the reasons it is have nothing to do with technology but with other issues involving factors including but not limited to inertia, investment capital requirements, business remodelling and human nature.

Well, I agree with you there. Cable companies are just transitioning to digital cable. Are they going to want to undergo another major infrastructure change in the near future? But, IPTV probably isn't quite as difficult to implement on Verizon FiOS, and, of course, AT&T U-verse already is a form of IPTV. I think we'll start seeing it develop in stages, but it's probably going to be quite a while before everything is on-demand and IP-based. I definitely think it will happen in my lifetime though.

With cell phones you are right that people use them even though they drop calls, etc. However, there is no other choice but to use a cell phone outside the home so that's not a fair comparison. For voice, It's either the cell phone or nothing.

My point was that younger people don't bother getting land lines at home because they're reasonably happy with their cell phone service. Even in cases where they have access to a land line, in my experience, they tend to reach for their cell phone instead.

With video, the bar goes up higher. People want a good picture and they are not going to sit there watching a frozen screen or jerky grainy stuttering video. It's video after all. But, why do they watch shows time-shifted online?

I disagree on two points. First, I think it's perfectly possible to come up with Internet TV systems that don't have significant problems with frozen screens or jerky grainy stuttering video. I think bastafidli and I have given plausible descriptions of what those systems would look like.

Second, I think people are willing to give up some level of quality and reliability for convenience. I'm not saying that people would drop down to Youtube/Hulu/Netflix quality video streaming, but I think they would be willing to drop down to service levels within reach of Internet TV systems.

I really don't think the market wants a poorer visual experience and that is what I think you guys are suggesting.

Again, why do you think it has to be a significantly poorer visual experience? There might be some drop in reliability and/or video quality, but I think it's perfectly possible to reach the "cell phone standard". That is, to achieve sufficient reliability and quality that the added convenience outweighs any losses.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I don't understand why you think Internet TV has to result in any of those things.

Ok maybe I was exaggerating a bit. I have found there is some reasonably good quality HD video (such as from TED) on the Internet, albeit it only looks that way on my laptop screen. But often it won't play and can stutter a bit. But then I am spoiled as I am part of the approximately 25% of the public in the US and Canada that watches HD on an HDTV (another 25% owns HDTVs but watches SDTV and the rest own SDTVs). You simply can't get 1920x1080 TV programs delivered through the internet to an HDTV right now that is anywhere near the quality of HD delivered by cable.

Originally Posted by reggie14

My point was that younger people don't bother getting land lines at home because they're reasonably happy with their cell phone service. Even in cases where they have access to a land line, in my experience, they tend to reach for their cell phone instead.

But, that usually changes when they get older and have a family. You rarely see households where the only phones in the house are the cell phones that Mommy and Daddy have. It's also safer because you can teach your child to dial 911 when he or she is as young as 3 or 4 years old if something happens. That's not going to happen if there is no phone handy to the child. Actually I'd go so far as to say it's irresponsible not to have a land line in the home when you have young children.

I too have thought of getting rid of my land line, but then it's useful when I have guests staying over, when I need to use the land line to phone my phone to find out where the hell in the house I left it, when the power goes out (ok that only happens once every 30 years) or when your cell phone battery dies or the phone just dies. Land line phones always work and are handier in the house since you can have multiple ones around the house and they are also wireless. Cell phones are handier outside the home, landlines are handier in the home. And, since I have a landline that forwards to my cell phone automatically without ever having to key in a number (it's hard coded into my landline service and all I do is change the number of rings to 0 on it when I leave the house and back to 4 rings when I come back, after which it goes to my cell phone and then to my sole voice mail).

Anyway, I agree with you, but young people start thinking differently when they get older.

Originally Posted by reggie14

I disagree on two points. First, I think it's perfectly possible to come up with Internet TV systems that don't have significant problems with frozen screens or jerky grainy stuttering video. I think bastafidli and I have given plausible descriptions of what those systems would look like.

You misunderstood me. I agree with you. My point is only that we are not there yet.

Originally Posted by reggie14

Second, I think people are willing to give up some level of quality and reliability for convenience. I'm not saying that people would drop down to Youtube/Hulu/Netflix quality video streaming, but I think they would be willing to drop down to service levels within reach of Internet TV systems.

Maybe, but I think where we differ is that your idea and my idea of how good that experience has to be for wholesale adoption to occur differs.

Originally Posted by reggie14

Again, why do you think it has to be a significantly poorer visual experience? There might be some drop in reliability and/or video quality, but I think it's perfectly possible to reach the "cell phone standard". That is, to achieve sufficient reliability and quality that the added convenience outweighs any losses.

I think the reason is because there was never a prior referential high quality experience to compare the 'cell phone standard' to. There has never been the ability to communicate via speech when one was mobile before, so anything is better than nothing. So, even in the beginning when cell phones just came out, we were willing to accept something that was a far worse experience than today because we could do something we could never do before. My first phone was a clunky 'brick' style car phone that was hardwired to the car. But it was better than not having a phone at all. Similarly the huge portable brick phones you used to initially see salesmen carry around in the 80's (they seemed to be the first adopters) were used because they provided a functionality that was not there before. It's unimaginable today that someone would carry that around, but they did then for the reason that it was the only game in town.

With TV video, there is such a referential standard. We have had extremely high quality high quality full screen, 1920x1080, robust broadcast quality TV and PVR's that simply 'just work' for a few years now. They never stutter (well almost never), all channels are always on, you can rewind, fast forward, etc, you never have to reboot, etc etc.

My point is that the bar is set much much higher with video. There never was really a bar with cell phones. I don't disagree with the fact that there is a segment of the population where the bar is lower with video, but I don't think that is the norm.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

...have the time-shifting, place-shifting, anything-want-on-demand ability of the internet coupled with the quality and reliability of cable TV and cable TV DVR's (whether time shifted or not).

I wouldn't hold up the quality of cable co DVRs as being good. It's not just the crappy software but the Rogers SA boxes have a horrible propensity to crash when you try to watch VOD. This has gotten somewhat better recently but it is still very unreliable.

[TorontoSage]

I never use VOD, so I don't know. But, I have never had a Rogers box crash (but I've had an external disk attached to an SA8300HD PVR die on me)

But the point that I was trying to make was that if the picture that we see using SageTV was inferior to the one that we see on cable then I doubt many of us would have adopted SageTV just for the software capabilities. We had a prior reference standard to compare to.

[bastafidli]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

You are missing my point. People don't care what kind of a pipe they have so long as they get one they want through that pipe.

Yup, you got it. What I claimed was that there will be pipes that will be able to give you more than others or for better cost of with better experience. At that time the pipe (or better, the supplier of the pipe) will start matter

[kjgarrison]

Originally Posted by Kryspy

Well my problem is that I think the HD-PVR is a half ass solution for getting satellite into SageTV.

.....

Aside from not having the ability to keep video forever my DVR does all that SageTV does.

Kryspy

This is a key issue in this noob's mind. Your DVR can only play one recorded program at a time. Is that also true for a program on a HTPC's hard disk?

[TorontoSage]

I don't agree that the HD PVR is half-assed. But, the HD PVR would be more powerful and likely would have been designed to record digital content if the cable and satellite companies had not made this impossible by incorporated DRM into their boxes. So, component video, which is analog, is pretty well the only way to get the content out of the box unless you want to get the Nextcom R5000 which means your box has to be sent to them for modification (and then again when you change boxes, etc).

As for your question:

You can play multiple programs at the same time. As for live TV you can watch as many live channels as HD PVRs you have, just like you can only watch as many live TV channels as cable or satellite company boxes you have. You can watch multiple live and recorded TV programs at the same time.

This is by no means an exhaustive list but other things you cannot do with a DVR that maybe Kryspy is unaware of:

Use extenders instead or PCs to view content at remote TV's around the house;
Have practically unlimited storage;
Watch online video (Youtube, Google, TED, etc);
Watch other recorded video (personal home recordings);
Change the user interface and also create your own (style, colour, look & feel);
View digital pictures;
Listen to your digital music collection;
Copy TV programs to your laptop to take on the road;
Backup your TV programs;
Have commercials automatically skipped;
Create a custom TV guide;
Reprogram your recordings when you are away through your Blackberry or iPhone/iTouch;
Transcode your recordings for other devices (iPod etc);
Placeshift TV programs so you can watch them from other locations;
and on and on...

[Kryspy]

kjgarrison,

noob~ ya gotta be kidding me. Speak for yourself. Only children use the word noob. I get the concept of SageTV. When was my join date again?

Actually my DVR can play 2 shows at once.

2nd show is output through the 2nd tuner and injected into the coax of the rest of the house.

I am merely stating that for me, The HD-DVR isn't the answer. The R5000 mod route or perhaps waiting for the awaited Dish DRACO vapourware.

Kryspy

[TorontoSage]

He was clearly referring to himself, not you.

[mayamaniac]

I'm still not clear on what problems some people are having with the HD-PVR. Mine is working like expected since day one. Is it because they want to use digital audio outputs? I'm using analog outputs for audio and its working perfectly.

[Kryspy]

Mayamaniac,

Yeah for me it's the digital that I think keeps coughing up errors.

RCA outputs work just fine.

Kryspy

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by mayamaniac

I'm still not clear on what problems some people are having with the HD-PVR. Mine is working like expected since day one. Is it because they want to use digital audio outputs? I'm using analog outputs for audio and its working perfectly.

Well for example, for me I have to HD PVRs. I couldn't get both IR flashers working and then find out there's a bug in the software that does not allow both to be used at the same time (I don't know how I was supposed to know this as Hauppauge does not point that out in their marketing materials). Then I get one of the IR flashers working. But sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes I have to reboot and then it works. Sometimes if I unplug the flasher and plug it back in again and it starts working. There's no rhyme or reason to what makes it work. I have the latest SageTV software. I have the latest HD PVR software and drivers, etc. I have the latest Windows XP Professional software updates. And my problems are in addition to those that others experience on here.

It's obvious from all of the posts on here that the HD PVR is one of the flakiest pieces of hardware ever to come out. Their tech support department must be very very busy. Now I wonder if this is just the way it is always going to be or if they are actually taking steps to improve the software and drivers. Who knows. Maybe it is SageTV's fault as the two products integrate together.

I don't know. I just know that I am incredibly frustrated after spending good money (over $400 USD) for these two HD PVRs and countless hours trying to get the product to work.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who gets there HD PVRs working properly off the bat is plain lucky.

[mayamaniac]

If your STB has firewire, definitely go with firewire for changing channels. Before I purchased the HD-PVR, I did my homework and made sure firewire works. If firewire is not an option, then invest in a USB-UIRT. The USB-UIRT can control 3 devices at the same time. I know it's more money to spend on, but at least you will get the HD-PVRs working. As for people with audio problems, why not use analog for audio? At least you know that is 100% working. When I bought the HD-PVR, the digital audio wasn't working and it was said to be working in future drivers, but I wasn't expecting to use it.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by mayamaniac

If your STB has firewire, definitely go with firewire for changing channels. Before I purchased the HD-PVR, I did my homework and made sure firewire works. If firewire is not an option, then invest in a USB-UIRT. The USB-UIRT can control 3 devices at the same time. I know it's more money to spend on, but at least you will get the HD-PVRs working. As for people with audio problems, why not use analog for audio? At least you know that is 100% working. When I bought the HD-PVR, the digital audio wasn't working and it was said to be working in future drivers, but I wasn't expecting to use it.

I did find all of that out, some of it before I bought the HD PVRs, but it's just not right that you have to buy and then fiddle with other equipment to make the fully equipped equipment you just bought work. I unfortunately don't have firewire on my laptop but will be moving to a server, which I was going to be doing anyway, and that will have firewire.

[Kryspy]

mayamaniac,

"As for people with audio problems, why not use analog for audio? At least you know that is 100% working."

No offence but why make sacrifices to use a product that should just work?

With that thought in mind why not just use coax output to a VCR

These are the reasons I returned the Hauppig and vow to not buy another. Adding a middle man device as flakey as the HD-PVR defeats the purpose IMHO. decoding to analog and back to digital is the other clincher for me.

Kryspy

[gplasky]

Originally Posted by Kryspy

mayamaniac,

"As for people with audio problems, why not use analog for audio? At least you know that is 100% working."

No offence but why make sacrifices to use a product that should just work?

With that thought in mind why not just use coax output to a VCR

These are the reasons I returned the Hauppig and vow to not buy another. Adding a middle man device as flakey as the HD-PVR defeats the purpose IMHO. decoding to analog and back to digital is the other clincher for me.

Kryspy

One reason to use it would be this is the ONLY device on the market that CAN get you your HD shows from EVERY channel your provider has. (Provided you have one of their set top boxes.) And not everyone has these issues. Agreed I only have one on my system but mine works 100% of the time, I have it working with optical connected to my Comcast STB and I haven't had it freeze on me since the first coupole of weeks. (Over a year ago I think) I have it running on a WHS. And it is actually from the first batch that was ever shipped. You have no other options if you want to record HD from every channel (including encrypted) that your provider has. A R5000 is another option but that doesn't work with every STB and it also has issues and people have problems with it. Until movie studios, cable and satellite providers, tv studios all get on the same page of what can and can't be recorded and streamed in your own house you will only have these niche products and some of the problems that come with them.

I agree the Hauupauge device should be more stable for everyone. And I'm a little dissapointed in the progress of the drivers. The latest version just annouced fixes 1 issue. And that issue I had never heard of. It has been months since the last beta that gave us optical. I'm at a loss to understand just what they are doing.

Gerry

[TorontoSage]

I guess some companies feel that when they have a produdct which is the only game in town, that it is ok if the product works some of the time for some of the people.

[mayamaniac]

Originally Posted by Kryspy

mayamaniac,

"As for people with audio problems, why not use analog for audio? At least you know that is 100% working."

No offence but why make sacrifices to use a product that should just work?

With that thought in mind why not just use coax output to a VCR

These are the reasons I returned the Hauppig and vow to not buy another. Adding a middle man device as flakey as the HD-PVR defeats the purpose IMHO. decoding to analog and back to digital is the other clincher for me.

Kryspy

I guess I just value video quality way more than audio. And as Gerry says, the HD-PVR is the only option to get encrypted HD into SageTV, so I'm willing sacrifice digital audio.

As for why Hauppauge hasn't corrected this digital audio problem for so long, I'm guessing it could be a design flaw much like the instability problems of the PVR-350 they had several years back.