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.
Is remote record possible on Freesat+ ?
1 of 2
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!
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!
Originally Posted by grahamlthompson:
“Some of us hope that the ethernet port might ultimately support this type of control”
“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).
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'.
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'.
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
I'd love to know how many people feel strongly about this so we can understand the views for later products.
Bob
Originally Posted by Bob_Cat:
“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.”
“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.
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)
(Again, we don't have plans, just interested to know peoples views on the subject)
Originally Posted by dms05:
“The Sky system of remote recording works very well but that's because they have a much more integrated operating system than Freesat. ”
“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.
Originally Posted by Tern:
“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 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.
Originally Posted by Bob_Cat:
“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.”
“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.
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.
) 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.
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?
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?
I think it's a good idea, the Sky +/HD works really well and the iphone/ipod touch application is really well made.
Originally Posted by Bob_Cat:
“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 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
Originally Posted by Bob_Cat:
“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 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
Originally Posted by Bob_Cat:
“The device would probably poll,
(Again, we don't have plans, just interested to know peoples views on the subject)”
“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.
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?
Originally Posted by rd3000:
“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?”
“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
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
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
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.
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.
Originally Posted by nwhitfield:
“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.”
“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
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.
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.
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
Just give us an API and let us make the interface ourselves
1 of 2
