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

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