phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to kamm
Re: don't stifle it...
said by kamm  :said by yabos :I really can't see how this is any better than the DVR, except they can now record how many times you view a tv show. That's the point: it isn't better at all.It's just giuves them full control over your content. logically the next step will be when you'll be charged if you want to save it to your VCR/DVDR/etc. Try having your hard drive fry in your REAL DVR, and then swapping it only to find all your content gone. This sucks, especially considering you paid additional to be able to have DVR. I think the possibility of VOD related glitches may make it a little less fast in response to using a hard drive based DVR service, but all content could be viewed in any room of the house that has a box, and the provider could upgrade storage availability simply by adding equipment in the head end and the provisioning the boxes to use it. I think you guys fighting this are all just mad because you had suck experiences with Video on Demand type services, and think they are taking control away from you. The control is still in your hands, you can still record whatever you want. Geez. 
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
bbenso1
join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD
| said by phattieg :Try having your hard drive fry in your REAL DVR, and then swapping it only to find all your content gone. This sucks, especially considering you paid additional to be able to have DVR. Maybe you should have backed up some of that content if you didn't want a hardware failure to wipe it out.
said by phattieg :I think you guys fighting this are all just mad because you had suck experiences with Video on Demand type services I haven't had any problems with VOD type services. But I have had problems where the cable is out so I'd like to watch something previously recorded only to find out that I can't watch it because the DVR can't sync with the headend so it won't let me do ANYTHING. This is the same problem you'll have when they move all the recordings to the headend instead of local to your system. Of course, after I had this problem I built a MythTV box so now I don't have to rely on the crappy cable system to watch my recordings.
said by phattieg :and think they are taking control away from you. The control is still in your hands, you can still record whatever you want. Geez. Umm, they ARE taking control away from us. The difference is that you don't see that because when you click the 'Record This' button THEIR server happily says 'OK, that's fine, I'll record this for you'. But don't think for a second that that won't change sometime in the future. It's only a matter of time until they decide that you shouldn't be able to record the final episode of Lost or American Idol or whatever. And since the recording is taking place on THEIR system at the headend it's nearly trivial for them to change the system so when you click the 'Record This' button you get a message that says "We're sorry, but the creator of this program has decided that we cannot allow you record this episode. It's too bad you let us take control away from you when we did. Now we've got it and you're screwed. Have a nice day." |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to yabos
said by yabos :I really can't see how this is any better than the DVR, except they can now record how many times you view a tv show. It is cheaper to provide DVR functionality on a server to many more users than by rolling out $500 to $750 plus STB's. And they can do it a cheaper price to the consumer, thereby getting more users to sign up for DVR services.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| reply to odog
I agree. The DVR on their system is ridiculous to begin with. It sounded a lot like Cable wants more money for PPVs. Oops! Lost your show? Just rebuy it! How reliable is it is the real question. If the studios don't think so, it probably isn't. I'm all for ala carte with a basic paackage for say $20. That keeps the niche programming on air and doesn't allow censorship.
I don't watch ESPN so why should I have to pay $4 a month for it?
My idea:
Basic tier: $20-25 (your basic 50-70 channels). The rest is ala carte. Cable would make more money actually on the idiots that didn't get it all. But, people that just want to watch the major channels wouldn't have to pay for all that crap!
-Rach |
|
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to kamm
quote:
It's just giuves them full control over your content.
Seems to me they already have control over the content.
quote:
logically the next step will be when you'll be charged if you want to save it to your VCR/DVDR/etc.
Don't blame them if it happens blame the ones stealing the content that forced their hand.
Their content to do as they like. You the consumer just pay to view it. There is no god given right that says you are allowed to copy it and have it forever.
--
Fx v1.5.0.4 - Tb v2.0a1,
Live Long & Prosper! |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to kamm
said by kamm :Well, that's what called limited abilities when it comes to abstractions - I don't need to see it to understand a fairly primitive underlying idea... Really? You sure don't seem to understand the fairly primitive idea of remote storage; IE: the idea that data stored on a hard drive on a computer somewhere far away doesn't just go poof if network connecting the two gets severed temporarily.
Watch as I make Kamm mysteriously disapear for about 2 days
--
Behold the future:
The Sony Playboxwii 361.5DS |
|
