[kymics]

Gateway/Portal(s) have been updated to the new code version iS2, so please use the following NEW MAIN THREAD:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=145709

Before you post there, please see this list of issues …
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=145359
… to avoid duplicate reports.

Other threads of note:

Adding external drives
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=142528

Gateway promotions (new subs only)
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=144468

Wait times for Gateway support
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=145274

Cheers,
downbeat

 

[kymics]

Shaw Gateway Box: Whole-home PVR by Arris

This may have been mentioned already, I don't know where it would have been discussed, but I was talking with a Shaw rep last night about an HD-PVR and he mentioned that there's a rumour that Shaw will be implementing a 'whole home HD-PVR' (assuming the same concept as what MTS is offering).

He was talking about the benefits of purchasing the current HD PVR (I believe the Motorola model) when he mentioned the rumour.

 

[Jetranger]

That would be the Motorola DCX3400M with MoCA. Once enabled, MoCA will allow 'home networking' of PVRs. This might explain why Shaw is "handing out these boxes like Skittles". That was the exact phrase used by one of the reps I was talking with a couple of weeks ago. Presumably, Shaw will also need to start offering a non-PVR box like the DCX700 to complement the MoCA service but so far no rumours of that, yet.

 

[gbabuk]

Can't wait for Shaw to go this route! If it wasn't for my intense hatred of Telus, I would have already switched for PVR Anywhere. Come on Shaw, make it happen!

 

[kymics]

I tried to get some of those "Skittles" last night by issuing a casual threat to leave Shaw because of the whole home PVR MTS offers and all I got was an apology that there was nothing they could do to help me out (apart from taking $400 of my hard earned cash).

 

[googler]

I was talking to a rep there and they said they were doing some testing with the DCX700, DCX3200 and DCX3400. All of them Moca capable.
They said that shaw wants to do this right, so they are taking their time testing this everything out.

 

[Bluemp5]

"taking their time" huh.......wow shocker of a move by Shaw!

 

[downbeat]

Considering how their recent rollout of a new program guide for HD receivers/PVRs was riddled with bugs and other problems, perhaps the fact Shaw's taking its time to shake out the flaws of its whole-home PVR system isn't such a bad thing.

 

[Jetranger]

But are they doing and 'real world' testing? I highly doubt it and, because of that, I would expect things to be no better than anything else they have rolled out in the past.

 

[tux]

Out of those boxes, only the DCX3400 can record. The DCX3200 is an HD box, and the DCX700 is an SD box.

Either box can play SD content recorded on the DCX3400; the DCX3200 can play HD content from the DCX3400 , and a program can only be played on one box at a time.

Also, setting and deleting recordings must be done directly from the DCX3400; it cannot be done remotely from the DCX3200 or DCX700 .

What I really would like to see, now that they have the A28 guide deployed, is internet PVR administration (similar to what Comcast rolled out when they launched the A28 guide).

 

[Jetranger]

Bummer!

That doesn't sound like much of a 'system' now, does it?

I second your last statement, tux.

 

[travisc]

The DCX700 is not an SD box, it's HD.

I believe tux is incorrect in stating that recordings can not be started from the remote boxes. My understanding of the system is that all boxes can use the recording capability of the central DVR, and that the central DVR can in fact use the tuners of the remote boxes to record more than the 2 tuners it has locally.

 

[adiabatic]

Out of those boxes, only the DCX3400 can record. The DCX3200 is an HD box, and the DCX700 is an SD box.

Don't confuse the DCT700 vs. DCX700. They're very different boxes.

 

[dawks]

So would this mean if I had 1 of the DXC3400s, I could get a 'cheaper' basic box and view recorded programs from the main PVR on another TV? Also gain the live 'rewind and ff' features?

Or if I had two PVR's I could record a show on one box, and watch it on another?

 

[accord1999]

From the Comcast whole home PVR thread from a large american AV forum, the system only supports 1 PVR as PVRs cannot communicate with other PVRs. Only the PVR can record, so at most only 2 shows at once. Satellite units can play, pause, rewind, ffwd recorded shows but not live TV. The satellite units also can't initiate recordings.

 

[travisc]

Well, I'll take your word for it. Obviously the software hasn't been written to take full advantage of the capabilities of the MoCA system, unfortunately.

 

[Jetranger]

The operative question might be; How is it that our imaginations can think of so many ways that our tv viewing could be better, yet Motorola can't seem to provide the equipment to fulfill the expectations? This isn't rocket science any more, it's just a little programming(no pun intended). Conceivably, the equipment IS capable of many more things that we, the consumer, have been waiting for. Perhaps it is all about Shaw not providing the programming for the equipment to live up to it's full abilities. Why would that not surprise me?

 

[travisc]

Shaw doesn't program this stuff - the capabilities are built into the iGuide and the firmware written by Motorola.

 

[Jetranger]

Shaw does decide what software they want to run on these boxes. I have spent most of the evening reading about the 'capabilities' of the DCX series boxes and, from what I can tell, there isn't going to be enough time for Shaw to even scratch the surface on the possibilities before something new comes along. Some of the documents I found, from the Motorola website, go back 4 years. This 'new' equipment is seemingly on it's last legs and yet it is the 'latest and greatest' to be offered by Shaw. Sadly, in Canada it seems, we are forced to be on the 'trailing edge' of technology.

 

[travisc]

I agree, they decide what goes on there, but they're not the ones writing it. I inferred from your earlier comment about not providing the programming that Shaw had a role in writing the software.