DS Forums

 
 

Is remote record possible on Freesat+ ?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-08-2009, 23:38
neil79
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 506

Really pleased up to now with the Foxsat but used to like the remote record option on Sky+ where you could set your box to record through either mobile phone or a remote computer.
neil79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-08-2009, 07:57
Millennium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East Surrey
Posts: 121
Neil

As far as I know the only easy way to do is is by using a Slingbox. That's what I do. The Foxsat remote has recently been added (in the last few weeks) which makes all the butttons available. Before, using a generic remote, the Media button wasn't which made it pretty useless!
Millennium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2009, 09:56
grahamlthompson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
Some of us hope that the ethernet port might ultimately support this type of control
grahamlthompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2009, 10:20
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
Some of us hope that the ethernet port might ultimately support this type of control
I've been hoping that but something has just occured to me:

What happens if the box is in 'deep' standby?

It is possible to have 'wake on LAN activity' circuitry but whether or not that exists in the current box is anyone's guess.

Sky can do it because their boxes never really turn off (unless you disconnect the mains).
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2009, 11:15
dms05
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 324
The Sky system of remote recording works very well but that's because they have a much more integrated operating system than Freesat.

If Freesat were to set up the required Internet interface/ EPG and if the Freesat equipment manufacturers were to implement the system fully then maybe it could be made to work, however manufacturers have a bad habit of assuming they know better and rarely implement anything fully.

So Sky can do it as they have control of all the stages (including uplinking remote record info the the satellite for downloading to the receiver) whereas Freesat is a much more diffuse system of an EPG supplier and many equipment manufacturers.

In other words 'don't hold your breath'.
dms05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 09:22
Bob_Cat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 1,302
This isn't a planned feature of the current product. It was considered but it failed at the cost/benefit discussion.

I'd love to know how many people feel strongly about this so we can understand the views for later products.

Bob
Bob_Cat is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 09:38
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
This isn't a planned feature of the current product. It was considered but it failed at the cost/benefit discussion.

I'd love to know how many people feel strongly about this so we can understand the views for later products.
It would be very nice but it doesn't seem compatible with power save standby - at least at the moment.

In hardware terms the box would need to have a 'wake on LAN activity' feature and the software used would need to be able to put the box back into standby.

Not impossible but certainly not trivial.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 10:00
Gostwycke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10

I would really like a remote control facility even if it only works when the HDR is awake.
Gostwycke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 10:08
Bob_Cat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 1,302
The device would probably poll, waking up to active standby once in a while, but this would mean you couldn't book programmes that are starting inside the time-frame of the sleep window. But I imagine using "last seen" data and a notice on the Web UI it would be possible to warn the user if a scheduled item can be recorded. Obviously it wouldn't work for instant recordings but it could have some use.

(Again, we don't have plans, just interested to know peoples views on the subject)
Bob_Cat is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 10:12
jwball
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,233
The Sky system of remote recording works very well but that's because they have a much more integrated operating system than Freesat.
Because Sky have the majority of boxes connected to a phone line and a bunch of servers dealing with remote record and as someone has already stated a box which doesn't actually go into standby.
jwball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 10:24
jwball
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,233
It would be very nice but it doesn't seem compatible with power save standby - at least at the moment.

In hardware terms the box would need to have a 'wake on LAN activity' feature and the software used would need to be able to put the box back into standby.

Not impossible but certainly not trivial.
It sounds simple but in reality it would be much more difficult to achieve due to ip address and magic "WOL" packet issues. Most domestic routers block WOL requests as they are seen as threats. The only way I can see this happening is with a VPN, and Joe Average isn't seriously going to set one up unless he's pretty determined.
jwball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 10:28
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
The device would probably poll, waking up to active standby once in a while, but this would mean you couldn't book programmes that are starting inside the time-frame of the sleep window. But I imagine using "last seen" data and a notice on the Web UI it would be possible to warn the user if a scheduled item can be recorded. Obviously it wouldn't work for instant recordings but it could have some use.
That's a very good solution.

I suspect that this would be a very popular idea with people who use PC based EPG's (like Digiguide) but less so for people using paper listings.

It's not that I want to be able to set recordings whilst away from home. Rather that it would be great to be able to go through a weeks programmes on Digiguide and set the ones I wanted directly from the PC.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 10:30
nwhitfield
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London
Posts: 4,517
The way I implemented remote record for the Topfield freeview models (which we had working before Sky ) was by having all the recording data stored on the Toppy.org.uk web site, and then the user's computer (since the Toppy can't access the net directly) polls the site when they want, and transfers a control file to the PVR.

So, you can just set a timer for the PVR to wake up, to coincide with a scheduled job for the computer to fetch the timer info.

With the Humax having IP capabilities, I suppose it would be possible to do something like that; one reason I went down that route was that it avoided the configuration and support problems of trying to send stuff to devices behind people's home firewalls, which is something I don't think any support team wants to have to worry about.

Sky has the luxury of being able to address each receiver individually, thanks to having a CA system and complete end to end control.
nwhitfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 12:57
vortex2000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4
There is a great app for the iPhone called RadioTimes that gives a handy pocket-sized program listing.

In their 'what's coming' section they claim to be adding PVR remote record directly from the app. I expect that they plan to support Sky+. Presumably, using a Humax API, then support could be produced for the HDR.

Is there a developers API available for the HDR?
vortex2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 13:57
loopie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 366
I think it's a good idea, the Sky +/HD works really well and the iphone/ipod touch application is really well made.
loopie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 15:43
rent-a-nuke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 76
This isn't a planned feature of the current product. It was considered but it failed at the cost/benefit discussion.

I'd love to know how many people feel strongly about this so we can understand the views for later products.

Bob
This is exactly the sort of feature that would convince people to leave $ky

It's a shame it' not coming to the HDR though
rent-a-nuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 17:34
StevieMac
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Yeldham, Essex
Posts: 172
This isn't a planned feature of the current product. It was considered but it failed at the cost/benefit discussion.

I'd love to know how many people feel strongly about this so we can understand the views for later products.

Bob
Bob_Cat, I would be really interested in a function like that. Could you give us an idea of any other improvements you are considering and having been ruled out yet under the cost/benefit discussion? I am aware of the plans to integrate BBC IPlayer at sometime this year (hopefully!).

Steven
StevieMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 18:26
meanioni
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26
The device would probably poll,
(Again, we don't have plans, just interested to know peoples views on the subject)
Well the EyeTV solution using TvTv works - TvTv is a bit naff, but it works. Once you set up an account, you can trawl their site to look for programmes. Select them for recording. The software connects once a day to check for incoming schedules.

Given that half the functionality is there and they are used to working with a remote third party - might be an option.

OK I know TvTv is not brilliant, but even that would be better than nothing.
meanioni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 21:13
rd3000
 
Posts: n/a
Remember, Sky charge up to £57 per month so can offer these 'free' add ons. How would Freesat host this service and recover development costs when Freesat is, well, free, other than the initial purchase of an STB?
  Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2009, 23:36
neil79
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 506
Remember, Sky charge up to £57 per month so can offer these 'free' add ons. How would Freesat host this service and recover development costs when Freesat is, well, free, other than the initial purchase of an STB?
Very true but there is no harm in asking
neil79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2009, 08:42
amn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 15
I really miss the remote record that I had with sky and would be very high on the list of things I'd like to see on the HDR.

Would a better (i.e. cheaper) solution be to have a web interface on the box and users can setup a port forward to that? Might not suit everybody but would not cost humax anthing to run
amn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2009, 09:34
nwhitfield
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London
Posts: 4,517
They wouldn't have server costs, but they'd have a lot more costs in terms of support.

People would see a feature advertised, and they'd expect to be able to make it work with, more or less, the same ease as most pieces of AV gear, which don't involve tinkering with NAT, firewalls, port forwarding and so on.

When it didn't work, they'd call Humax and complain. And Humax, lacking the massive database explaining how to set up port forwarding on every cheap router that's out there, would almost inevitably have to pass the buck to ISPs or networking equipment makers.

So, the net results is that while a few technical people would be able to make it work, the vast majority would have problems, and Humax would be able to do nothing much beyond telling them to phone someone else for assistance.

Net result? More phone calls, higher support load, and most users left with what they'd perceive as an unsatisfactory response. That's a very real cost, both in reputation and financial terms.
nwhitfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2009, 09:52
rent-a-nuke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 76
They wouldn't have server costs, but they'd have a lot more costs in terms of support.

People would see a feature advertised, and they'd expect to be able to make it work with, more or less, the same ease as most pieces of AV gear, which don't involve tinkering with NAT, firewalls, port forwarding and so on.

When it didn't work, they'd call Humax and complain. And Humax, lacking the massive database explaining how to set up port forwarding on every cheap router that's out there, would almost inevitably have to pass the buck to ISPs or networking equipment makers.

So, the net results is that while a few technical people would be able to make it work, the vast majority would have problems, and Humax would be able to do nothing much beyond telling them to phone someone else for assistance.

Net result? More phone calls, higher support load, and most users left with what they'd perceive as an unsatisfactory response. That's a very real cost, both in reputation and financial terms.
So it's provided as a hidden, undocumented feature just for us geeks
rent-a-nuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2009, 10:19
vortex2000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4
I spend most of the week away from home and spend some time at the weekends catching up on TV I've recorded on the HDR. However, I frequently hear of programs that I wish had set to record.

A remote record facility (web based or some sort of app) would be of great value to me - I may even be willing to pay some small subscription or fee for an app.
vortex2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2009, 10:58
amn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 15
Ok I can see the support issue, rent-a-nuke has a good idea with undocumented features probably unlikely though

Just give us an API and let us make the interface ourselves
amn is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:20.