An Appeals Court has ruled in favor of Cablevision allowing the company the ability to offer DVR network services. The ruling clears the way for Cablevision to offer the ability for users to record shows on the cable companies system, without the need for a hard drive, as is the case with satellite DVR’s. The article also states:

Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett notes this morning that the Court concurred with Cablevision’s view that by ceding control of what’s recorded to the customer, Cablevision’s network DVR model avoids direct liability for copyright infringement. “In Cablevision’s view, a network DVR is, in essence, simply a DVR with a very long cord,” he writes.

Moffett contends the ruling is “a huge win for cable operators,” with the potential for much lower capital spending going forward. “Cable operators would no longer need to provide a unique piece of hardware for each individual subscriber in order to offer DVR functionality,” he writes. “DVRs have been one of the largest single drivers of capital spending in recent years, accounting for as much as 10% of capital spending for the major [cable companies.] Further, cable gains a huge differentiator versus their satellite competitors. Under the ruling, cable operators will not only be able to offer DVR functionality to all digital subscribers – whether they have a DVR or not – but also to every TV outlet in the house that has a digital set top box.”

When my daughter was living in Virgina, they had cable TV that used the network to record programs. The system seemed to work OK and had ample storage to store a large amount of programing. But there is one things that this brought to mind. I use Dish Network and have a HD-DVR with some 350 hours of recording ability. I believe I prefer having my programs stored on a hard disk. My experiences with cable has been less than stellar. 🙂 But that is just me.

What do you think? Is a network DVR preferable to a hard disk DVR?

What do you think?

Comments welcome.

Source