network server based DVR

[Harry]

Saw an interesting article on CNET today about Comcast or Cablevision trialing a network server based DVR function. You would view the guide, select a show to be recorded. It would record it in the network and you could play it back from there. All they have to do is upgrade the servers and load new code into the set top boxes. No DVRs to install in the home, no maintenance on the DVRs etc. A potentially cheap and easy answer. It seems so smart you wonder why they waited this long to do it. Time Warner is quoted as very interested in the trail. The implication is that if it goes well they will implement it. Your shows could even be recorded if the connection to your house was down (not that it ever happens here).

[CANDY76MAN]

interesting

[Bschneider]

I don't think I would like it. But I would have to hear more about the plan. Some question I would like answered, How much space would I get? How much extra would it cost for just that space? Unlimited space? Just a few questions.

[bdraw]

I doubt the MPAA will let it fly, they will say it is really VOD and that the Cable companies need to pay as if it were VOD.

[pilotbob]

I doubt the MPAA will let it fly, they will say it is really VOD and that the Cable companies need to pay as if it were VOD.

Why? It is the same exact thing that is happening with a DVR... but, the "DVR" is at a central location. They would probably prefer it cause they could force you to watch the commercials. Ever try to skip by the commercials on the free VOD channells bright house has. You can't do it.

BOb

[LonghornXP]

Why? It is the same exact thing that is happening with a DVR... but, the "DVR" is at a central location. They would probably prefer it cause they could force you to watch the commercials. Ever try to skip by the commercials on the free VOD channells bright house has. You can't do it.

BOb

With VOD the customer has to pick what the network provides on the On demand listing. Because this NDVR product will let the "customer" and only the "customer" pick what to record it is considered different on legal terms. As long as the company says its a DVR service and the customer must pick the shows they want to record all the contracts in place will be all that is needed. What comes into play now is the customers fair use and every customer has a legal fair use right to record any show on TV at least once. This can be done with any type of recording device including all DVR type devices. The only difference with this solution is that the DVR that the show is recorded on isn't stored locally at the customers house. But beyond that the show is being recorded on a recording box and is being played back from that same recording box by only the customer that requested that recording.

The cable company can also only have one copy of the show recorded as long as only customers that requested the recording have access to playback that recording. Once the last customer "deletes" that recording than the show must be deleted from the recorder itself.

The reason the startover idea didn't work was because the cable company is recording a show before the customer requests it to be recorded. That is a big difference in legal terms and does require the cable company to get permission and maybe pay to get this access. Again as long as they market the service as a DVR service "and" only record from what is on the channels and only at the customers request they won't have a problem. If they sway away from this it can become a problem.

[bdraw]

The point I can see the MPAA attempt to make is that it is different from a DVR because when 10 people choose to record a show the cable company will only keep one copy of it for all 10 people not 10 copies. I think they are carzy, but I can see them attempting to make this point.

[tampahank]

Hah, surprised I didn't see this one before!

By now, this thing has been sued into a "paused" state (don't believe it's restarted, at least).

The discussion wasn't really a per-user copy count, but the content providers ("broadcasters") considered this service a re-broadcast of their content. Their mindset was, it's originating at the MSO, and going to the end user.. it's a re-broadcast. DVRs don't suffer this fate as they're regarded as lowly CPE, nothing more.

What will be interesting is to see how they try to re-launch the service (will it get rebranded/re-purposed?.. let's be honest, we're headed to a one-stream-per-TV model in most places), and also how well networks will embrace the "StartOver" concept (a more advertiser/broadcaster friendly version where you can start a show over from the beginning if you come in halfway through.. but you can only pause and rewind, no FF through commercials for you) that alot of MSOs are starting to toy with.

[CactusJack]

Cablevision lost the lawsuit: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070323/tc_nm/cablevision_dvr_dc

[tampahank]

Heh, just came by to see if anyone'd posted that yet.

It's really too bad. They were really kind of blazing a trail.. like I said, we're definately headed to a one-stream-per-TV model (in my opinion at l east), and this was the first step. It's neat technology, a neat service... ahh well. I'll have to look into what video servers they were using, I'm kinda curious..

Guess I gotta stick w/ my DVR for rewatching such quality entertainment as "Exorcist III" for now.

;)

[tampahank]

FYI, if anyone follows the xOD server market (Sure, I'm biasedly interested), I found out that this was actually being done with Arroyo's Vault/Streamer products. Arroyo was originally called "Calypso", but changed to Arroyo due to trademark infringement. They were recently purchased by the Borg (er, I mean Cisco) and now are called something like Cisco's "Content Delivery System". Very interesting model for edge caching and "library" services.