Cablevision's "remote" DVR: Will it be a better option?

With the Supreme Court's decision, "Remote DVR" may be on the way, but when that will be and how much it will cost remain to be seen.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision not to hear a final appeal by broadcasters and movie studios seeking to block Cablevision’s proposed “remote DVR” technology opens the door for the company, and others, to offer such a service.

Unlike a conventional DVR, which stores programs on a hard drive in the cable box in your living room, Cablevision’s planned remote DVR service lets you store programs on the company’s servers. Because the technology resides within the cable system’s network, subscribers can use their existing cable boxes instead of renting new equipment. This would free consumers from the storage limits of their hard drive (often about 30 hours of HD video). It could also theoretically make the service cheaper, since the cable companies don’t have to deploy and service separate boxes.

So when will we be able to get this new service? Unfortunately, no time soon, since Cablevision says there’s no timetable in place for a rollout of its remote DVR service. Instead, Cablevision’s first application of the technology will be far more prosaic: Subscribers with standard cable boxes will be able to pause live TV when the phone rings—something I (and Cablevision subscribers with DVRs and cable-phone service) can already do with my DirecTV DVR service, which displays Caller-ID information on the TV screen.

As a result, many questions remain as to how the service will really work.

For example:

• How much will Cablevision charge for its remote DVR service? Current subscribers pay a $10 per month DVR service fee, but nothing extra for the box itself.
• Will existing cable boxes need a firmware or software update to work with the remote DVR service?
• Will the company continue to offer conventional DVRs to subscribers who prefer them, and allow those who currently have them to keep them?
• Will there be preset limits on the amount of storage each subscriber gets, or price tiers allowing you to pay for greater storage if you wish?
• Will you be able to simultaneously record two shows while viewing a previously recorded selection?
• Will you be able to fast-forward past commercials, the way we do now, or will that feature be blocked?
• And will we be able to make DVD backups of recorded shows to free up our allotted storage space, or to archive shows we want to keep permanently?

In fact, it seems a bit odd to me that Cablevisions has no definite plans to offer the service, especially since its announcement of an impending remote DVR rollout was what got them sued in the first place. Maybe it’s the conspiracy theorist in me, but I’m thinking the delay could be due to backroom negotiations between Cablevision and broadcasters to limit the ability to fast-forward through commercials. A perhaps less intrusive approach would be for cable operators to work with broadcasters to insert newer, more targeted ads in the stream that would have greater relevancy and appeal to viewers so maybe they won’t want to skip them.

Another thought is that given the inefficiency of having to make separate recordings of every program subscribers want to record, the company may be investigating if there’s a way to store a single “master” recording of a program that could be shared by all those who want to view it. The legality of this approach is unclear, given the narrowness of an appeals court's prior ruling. While it did affirm the right of consumers to “time-shift” personal recordings per the original Betamax decision back in 1994, an essential element of its decision was that the recordings would be made and controlled by subscribers, not the company.

So what do you think? Do you like having a DVR that stores programs locally? Would you opt for a remote DVR if it were a cheaper option? What if it cost more but got you more space? And would you be willing to give up fast-forwarding through commercials if the ads you received were more closely targeted to your interests? Let us know what you think. –James K. Willcox

Comments

[Nathan Ramsey]

I am not a Cablevision customer, (I have Comcast) so some of this doesn't yet apply to me. I also don't use a cable company DVR, I have an HD Tivo which has a far better user interface and functionality than the Comcast HD DVR I used to have.

For me, fast forwarding through commercials is the single biggest reason I have a DVR. In fact, I almost never watch live TV anymore, rather I record nearly everything I want to watch. This lets me start an hour long show about 15 minutes in, and fast forward through the commercials. This results in less time sitting in front of the TV since I can watch a show in around 75% of the normal time.

If it came down to not being able to fast forward through commercials, I'd rather pay some type of fee for the ability to do so, as a last resort of course.

Another option might be to change the way ads are worked into programming. I REALLY like the way Discovery HD Theater channel works, where they show a bunch of ads at the beginning and end of a show, but no commercials during the show. Watching some channels now is so painful because it seems like every 5 minutes they are breaking for another set of commercials...

[RC]

The technology exists to move the Tivo/DVR/PVR from the home to the server room. The real question is do you want to be in control of the content you buy, or not.

So what I mean is, with the Tivo (or your cable company box, or the server-side option), you aren't really in control of what is going on. The company can alter the content you receive because they are in complete control of the equation. They can force you to upgrade to a new device that does what they want. They can control device/service prices because they are the only ones offering that device/service. They can discourage you from switching to a different company, because all your videos and preferences are locked into their system.

Or you can use a more "open" system that you have more control over. The obvious comparison here is email using a program on your computer, versus webmail from google or yahoo or microsoft. With the latter you are forced to see advertisements, your email is presented to you in a way you cannot change, you cannot easily switch to a different webmail, etc.

Putting all your electronic data (including personal information and videos you watch) on a remote server is convenient for us, and is convenient for the server provider. But you trade control for convenience. Already this decade, people who bought Google Video videos lost their purchases when the service changed. The same has happened to some music services.

So the question you as a consumer should ask yourself isn't about the technical merits of moving your cable company-controlled videos from one box to another. It is whether or not you want to be in control.