Verizon FIOS & MRV

[zwheeloc]

I just moved from DIRECTV to Verizon FIOS. I was going to try and get MRV, but the issue I have is that the TVs that are in the rooms are both HD. For MRV to work, you have on HD DVR in one place and then you have a couple of standard boxes on the other TVs, meaning that one of my HD TVs would not be able to view HD.

Is there a way with TiVo to have a HD DVR on both TVs and also have MRV?
Can this be done with FIOS?
What are the costs of the boxes (S3) to do this?
If S3, where do I get the cablecard from? Verizon? third party?

I tried to do searches throughout the forums for FIOS and MRV, but could't find any thread that could answer my question. If someone could point me to a relevant thread that would be fine and I thank you.

TIA

[Sixto]

The S3 works with FiOS

The S3 currently doesn't support MRV (yet). It's expected that when approved by CableLabs that the S3 will be able to do MRV. Not sure if just S3-to/from-S3 or S3 to/from S3&S2.

Many threads on this topic. Much speculation that eventually MRV with the S3 will be possible.

[Justin Thyme]

Is my understanding correct that the solution for MRV that FIOS provides is that the remote boxes do not recieve HD? And you can only have one HD DVR for the house?!? How very odd.

You no doubt have figured out the situation with S3s being blocked from MRV until CableLabs evaluates Tivo's on wire security.

I know that Microsoft got CableLabs approval for MRV, but their approach does not involve sending a copy like Tivo, so it may have some problems if your network is slow.

It surprizes me that FIOS didn't figure out that people might want to have more than one HDTV in the house. Anyone have concrete knowlege of what the real hard problem here is?

Anyway, there are a few HDMI distribution solutions for sending output from HDTV boxes to another HDTV. There is the generic downside of such distribution versus true MRV solutions- if anyone wants to use that device (in your case the FIOS HDTV reciever in the main room), then they have to watch what the remote HDTV is watching. As you know, there is a limit to how far an HDMI cable can be run before you get unacceptable signal degradation. Gefen makes one solution (http://www.amazon.com/Gefen-Inc-The-HDMI-1000/dp/tech-data/B0002X2X6Y/ref=de_a_smtd/103-0121890-1508613) . I guess pioneer made a proprietary solution too. I don't know anything practical about them- we are doing a remodel and I just wanted to research why I might want to run optical cable (which this requires).

[dt_dc]

Is my understanding correct that the solution for MRV that FIOS provides is that the remote boxes do not recieve HD?That is (currently) correct. Only Verizon's SD STBs (up to 6 of them) can be used as client(s) for their multi-room DVR solution. The DVR is HD ... but only SD STBs are supported as multi-room clients. Only SD content can be streamed to the SD STB clients. Ie, the HD multi-room DVR can not downconvert HD content to stream to the SD STB client.

Note: Verizon's multiroom DVR is a 'streaming' solution ... ie, regular STBs are used as clients ... it's not a DVR to DVR transfer like MRV.And you can only have one HD DVR for the house?!? (...) It surprizes me that FIOS didn't figure out that people might want to have more than one HDTV in the house. Anyone have concrete knowlege of what the real hard problem here is?You can have as many HD DVRs and HD STBs as you'd like. I've got two of their HD DVRs. However, I believe only one DVR can (currently) be used as the 'multi-room' hub / server.

Verizon has talked publicly (trade shows, investor conferences, etc) about enabling HD clients for their multi-room DVR ... it definately seems to be on their roadmap ... I'd be surprised if they didn't start offering it in the first half of 2007. Then again, they talk publicly about alot of cool new features ... since I don't work at Verizon hard to say what is trickling up / down the priority ladder.

[Justin Thyme]

Ok, that's understandable for a first try 70% solution.

It's hard to believe they would paint themselves into a corner with a net bandwidth limitations, since the local transport is theirs and files are some MPG4 variant- right? Of course their server box may not be able to gurantee so many simultaneous large data streams, and guarantee local responsiveness. Faster bus, striped drives- of course it can be done. Niveus (http://www.cepro.com/news/editorial/16438.html) does it for $5500+ on a Vista box with xbox360 clients. I am sure it can be done for much less than that, but still, the central DVR has to have capacity for this functionality that 90% of the folks will never use.

Suboptimal engineering solution for the problem set IMHO.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the weaknesses so it's natural to wonder what the heck is going on, and if there is not some undercurrent going on.

Networks have always been comfortable with these models of centralization and live broadcast. Not a lot of folks are aware of the story about how the networks prior to WWII prohibited time shifting radio shows. They had the technology for inexpensive sound recording in the thirties, but the use of such persistent storage was severely restricted. Sound familiar? The thought was that persistent storage was a slippery slope that could lead to loosening of the control the networks had over the affiliates, and further down the road- the rise of music and news distribution via tape rather than the radio networks. So you have Edward R. Murrow giving his report live during the blitz and if you were silly enough not to be glued to your radio set, you missed it.

In the grand scheme of things, the idea that you want to time shift is a lot older than Tivo and VCRs. NBC in particular made a huge deal about blanket prohibitions of time shifting the reports and entertainment shows. For D-Day, the networks decided that they really needed to make an exception so that combat reporters could make reports from the beaches and from bombers.

Regarding the general case of delayed broadcast prohibitions, affiliates complained to the FCC and Justice department declared that such time shifting bans were illegal. source (http://members.aol.com/jeff560/am2.html)

So from the historical perspective, it is really no big surprise that folks with economic motive to encourage dependence on the network are genetically inclined to choose such centralized solutions relying on live broadcast (streaming) schemes rather than more fault tolerant approaches relying on delayed broadcast (make a copy on a remote peer machine a la Tivo).

If this is the undercurrent, it still doesn't matter. I don't see that the FCC will go along with cablelabs prohibiting implementation of MRV through use of maintaing a local cache of the show, any more than they went along with networks prohibiting affiiliates from taping shows in the 40s. The principle extends prior to betamax.

[dt_dc]

Suboptimal engineering solution for the problem set IMHO.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the weaknesses so it's natural to wonder what the heck is going on, and if there is not some undercurrent going on.'Transfers' ala Tivo MRV and 'streaming' ala Verizon multiroom or MCEs both have their own advantages / disadvantages. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the weaknesses in either ...but still, the central DVR has to have capacity for this functionality that 90% of the folks will never use.Excessive / wasted capacity? Umm, Ok ... so I have 6 TVs ... I should hook up 6 dual tuner DVRs ala S3s or S2DTs in order to avoid wasted capacity? Not sure when I'm going to have to record 12 shows at once ... or watch 6 shows at the same time ... or dump 6 shows to VCR / external media simultaneously ... or perform however many transfers that allows simultaneously ... or that 1TB+ disk capacity (of course, it seems alot smaller if I have to replicate content all over the place) ...

The 'transfer' approach seems to have its fair share of excessive / wasted capacity as well ...

Here's the thing about the capacity / capabilities on that central DVR though ... yes if I build a central DVR with the same capacity as the 6 distributed ones it's going to lead to excess / waste just the same. But I don't need my central DVR to record 12 streams and distribute 6 ... if I did, yes we're in $5k+ Niveus land. But I'd be pretty happy with a subset of that. Let's say ... record two and distribute 3 ...

Centralize the DVR, centralize the capacity ...

You mention the bus and drive access. Is writing two streams and reading three that much overkill? Hmmm ... the typical dual tuner DVR writes two and reads one. That's a given. A background 'Save To VCR' is a pretty common / standard / expected feature (while performing other tasks). So that's two streams being written while two are being read. But do I need 'Save to VCR' all the time? I'd be pretty happy to have that second read capicity for 'Save To VCR' OR multi-room viewing. I don't need both at the same time. If 'Save to VCR' is in use ... any requests from a client box would get a 'busy please try again later' message. If multi-room is in use ... 'Save to VCR' would get a 'busy please try again later' message. That's how you avoid the excessive / wasted capacity you mentioned. Shared, centralized capacity. Yes with limits ... but, them's the breaks.

[dt_dc]

It's hard to believe they would paint themselves into a corner with a net bandwidth limitations, since the local transport is theirs and files are some MPG4 variant- right?No MPEG4. Verizon is distributing the as-broadcasted / as-recorded MPEG2. No transcoding. Geez ... talk about excessive capicity ... real-time HD mPEG2 -> MPEG4 transcoding?

No, the local transport isn't theirs. It's my coax and my router. Yes, they gave me the router to make it possible (since no one is selling MoCA equipment directly to consumers yet) and they tested the lines and replaced a few splitters / connectors. But it's mine. If I want to bump my games and bitorrent to have QoS priority over their on-demand or multi-room DVR, I can. Or if I want to attach more Moca adaptors (if they ever become available at retail) ... I can.

As for the capacity of that local transport ... no, if you believe all the MoCA alliance press releases that certainly shouldn't be an issue. Then again, if you believe all the MoCA / HomePNA / HomePlug press releases I've got a bridge to sell you.

However, yes, the local transport does seem perfectly capable of 3 HD streams and 8 SD streams in the vast majority of homes without replacing any wires or pulling new ones ...
http://www.twice.com/article/CA6288926.html

Ah, but the 'vast majority' part. Yes, it does paint them into a little bit of a corner. New deployment of a new technology that is specifically designed to minimize new installation costs by being fault tolerant ... if they pushed that local transport to the limit now you'd be hearing much more from people who weren't in the 'vast majority'. Right now, the people who can't get VOD (or the multi-room DVR) to work are people with absolute garbage / split / whatever coax in the walls. Figure out how to (quickly and efficiently) pick of those low hanging fruit ... or even just get a better idea of what the actual 'vast majority' numbers are ... then move on to push the transport a little more. An HD stream ... then another ... push it ... slowly.So from the historical perspective, it is really no big surprise that folks with economic motive to encourage dependence on the network are genetically inclined to choose such centralized solutions relying on live broadcast (streaming) schemes rather than more fault tolerant approaches relying on delayed broadcast (make a copy on a remote peer machine a la Tivo).Given the amount of people that want to see the Superbowl (live) or Shock and Awe (live) or American Idol (live) ... it shouldn't be too surprising that (live) delivery of content is important to any network company either.

I do find it odd, though, that people don't see the convergence of these fault tolerant / potentially delayed networks and fault intolerant / live networks. Why have some bandwidth resources dedicated to the one side (IP) and some to the other (QAM) for example. Why not handle the local transport in a way that can handle either and prioritize between the two?

[dt_dc]

if there is not some undercurrent going onNo 'undecurrent'. Yes the streaming model fits the copy assertion model better. That's just the way it is. Easier ... less messy details. Doesn't preclude the transfer model ... just makes it a little stickier / difficult.

[Justin Thyme]

My wife's family, my family, my sister and brother's family- we all have vastly different tastes but all are addicted to watching shows recorded on DVRs. They refuse to watch live except in rare instances and the idea that there could ever be a "Sorry... Busy" is a non starter. During the evening in my house- we have 3 televisions all playing very different stuff, so that would not be an infrequent situation.

Also though Moto makes good boxes, generally the service provider boxes have heavy pressure to be built as cheaply as possible, and that correlates with economizing on capabilities and higher than normal failure rates. The idea of designing a single point of failure system relying on a higher than normal failure rate device is a perfect formula for how to get the tech guy in the family put in the dog house for several weeks. If the living room box causes 6 folks in the house no not be able to watch "any" TV, there will be hell to pay. Yeah, sure they could watch live, but they all can't watch live any more than I can remember anyone's phone number. We just have gotten too used to a new way of doing it.

But sure I know it is a good fit for some situations, such as families with televisions sprinkled around the home- kitchen, den, bedroom, toilet etc. so that there is a need for reducing the cost per station, and all viewers having a common interest in the same storehouse of video.

As for reduced cost, each one is not necessarily a recorder. No need necessarily for 12 tuners. I was only speaking about caches. There is a step between where 40gb drives become so cheap that is comparable to the cost of the power supply to add a local cache. What you buy with the cache is greater resilience, and security of the video where it is needed. (No one dares delete Mom's cooking videos off of the kitchen MRV player, but much more easily could happen from the centralized system's storehouse).

Localization fits our models of ownership, relevance in context, and our expectation of responsiveness. Sure it is a little more expensive and not for all cases, but as drive costs continue to plummet, the persuasiveness of the argument for streaming gets weaker.


And now for something completely different. Have you been following the silicon photonics developments? As far as I am concerned, anything beyond the one year time horizon is sheer fantasy so I really have no idea how this is going to play out, but it seems like within the 5 to 10 year horizon Verizon could be delivering Terabits per second to the home an extremely reasonable price.

Is Verizon running sufficient glass down the streets to handle such loads. I know it is practically the same installation costs regarless whether you are running fiber cable at one capacity or one an order of magnitude higher, so they are likely being generous. However the Silicon Optonics breakthrough promises 1000X- and I was thinking- hey that might blow past the capacity they are installing at the last mile now. You have any thoughts or data on that?

In some ways, removing friction in distribution strengthens the hands of central services, but on the whole it democratizes since distribution systems that can only be afforded with economies of scale are now extremely low cost and within reach of small distributors.

[BobCamp1]

I should hook up 6 dual tuner DVRs ala S3s or S2DTs in order to avoid wasted capacity?

Not only that, but I know I don't have $4800 to spend on six S3s plus $160/month for subscriptions. The Verizon solution is slightly cheaper at $0 plus $60/month.

[Justin Thyme]

1) DT said you only get SD in the satellite boxes, so unfair comparison.

2) Series 1's came out at this price point, and it is also unfair to point to early adopter pricing to extrapolate what pricing would be if a tivo solution was used at the volumes of scale that Verizon can realize.

3) I paid less than 200 dollars for the three Tivos active in this house. Most of the money I spent went to hard drive capacities that you can't get with Fios's solution (My living room is currently an 800GB unit).

So less than $200 and $27/mo. So Bob, what were you saying about saving money?

[wkearney99]

When have telcos ever delivered capacity at a reasonable price? That and Verizon's scammed Congress into letting them install fiber and NOT HAVE TO SHARE IT like the copper wiring. So while it may be technologically feasible it's extremely UNLIKELY that a telco like Verizon will make any effort to deliver anything "better" without absolutely gouging for it.

[Justin Thyme]

Tesla thought that electricity was going to be free when he did his pioneering work.

As anyone here knows, I am a huge critic of these companies. But I am also exceptionally wary of naive beliefs that this stuff comes for free. My feeling is that so long as that these large companies are prohibitted from anti-competitive and vertical monopolist tricks to lock consumers out of otherwise viable technological alternatives, then I think we can place reasonable faith that access to the communications infrastructure that these companies are investing in shall be fairly priced.

[Thespis]

That and Verizon's scammed Congress into letting them install fiber and NOT HAVE TO SHARE IT like the copper wiring.
Verizon is installing fiber in ROWs they already control. The government didn't subsidize FIOS the way they have copper so why should they have any say over what Verizon does with its own, privately installed and paid-for network?

[wkearney99]

The government never subsidized copper either. It's been a matter of allowing the telco use of various rights of way and other practices. The exchange required them to provide equal access and is controlled by tariffs. If you don't understand what that's been a GOOD THING for you the consumer, your neighbors and everyone else that has a phone, then you won't even begin to appreciate why what they've schemed for fiber is a bad thing. That air and pole space in my front yard is not "their" right of way. It's mine and the local government and the telcos are granted use, not ownership. As part of that trade it's been expected they'll serve all citizens equally. That assumption, however, has been deliberately excepted by Verizon. This from a company that still gouges extra to rent phones or $5/month for caller ID; while everyone else includes it. And when they started rolling out Fios they were telling customers that their copper lines "must be" removed in order to put in fiber. Then if/when the customer needed to go back to another service the customer is forced to pay for new copper. Since the fiber isn't shared you can't simply use another carrier on it like you can with copper.

Suffice to say hijacking this thread isn't the point. Just that be warned that Verizon's fiber is not as great a deal, for YOU the consumer, as one might think. But then, you'd have to be THINKING to appreciate the risk.

[Jerry_K]

dt_dc,

Since you live so close I will have you meet my lovely wife. She has four tuners recording many times. I have spillover on the third DTiVo sometimes. Every show, everywhere, all the time, any time. That is MRV.

Two S3s already and with MRV the third will be purchased in milliseconds to act as an archiver and server. I will bring out the connections for the Sata drive so that I can swap drives in the time it takes for a reboot. That one will not be subbed.