We have been looking at buying a Freesat or Freeview HD PVR for a relative as a Christmas present. Choice is reasonable and quality seems pretty fair.

However, my only concern after doing some research and talking to a neighbour is are they as good value for money as they first appear? Now I'm not saying they don't represent value for money when viewed against subscription services, my question is how good. Example, my neighbour was telling me he is now on his third Freesat box due mainly to the fact that once you buy your PVR there is very little support. I suppose if you think about it then it makes common sense as once the sale has taken place there is no further revenue stream for the manufacturer so little incentive to keep updating the boxes. The Sky business model gives Sky an endless stream of cash so they have plenty of incentive to keep updating EPG, adding on demand content etc.

What do other think - is this assessment broadly correct?

If he's talking about Bush/Goodman/Grundig or maybe Panasonic then that might have some truth in it, I think Humax & Echostar are known for pretty good support.

Neighbours PVRs are Humax - early adopter, now on box 3. Think latest issue is he wants the on demand services etc. Not sure what the others were replaced for, hardware I think. I hadn't really thought about this issue until he brought it to my attention.

I'm with Sky and although it costs me about £250 per year, I do keep getting services added e.g. just got the latest EPG with on demand BBC iPlayer etc. which is pretty handy.

You get BBC iPlayer and ITV Player on Humax freesat boxes as well, but there's no sign yet of C4 (not yet on Sky either) or C5.

I presume you weren't thinking of getting your relative a nasty cheap Freesat box with no support. So probably the new Humax for £250 would be a good choice, but as your neighbour had to replace a Humax with hardware faults I can see why you're not that keen.

So alternatively why not buy this relative a Sky subscription for Christmas and then and if they're happy (why wouldn't they be) you can renew it for them every Christmas after.

Slightly confused why you say...........

"Choice is reasonable and quality seems pretty fair."

When you knew that 50% of your neighbours older boxes have had hardware faults and then needed replacing ! What is your definition of quality ?

Anyway my suggestion would be stick with what you know and get them a Sky HD package for Christmas (and don't be too cheap).

My HDR has its 4th birthday coming up in a few weeks time, it cost me £299 so that works out at £6-20p per month to date so no comparison when it comes to value for money.

Can’t comment on support though because my box has been faultless in its 4 years of life and if it breaks tomorrow I will be of to town to buy the latest model.

Here hoping it breaks tomorrow.

Ditto, fitted a 1TB drive in December 2008, and I don't want it to break . With the Custom Firmware it's a super pvr. I have a HDR-1000s with a 2TB drive in it by the way. Afaik only two in existence - Repassac has the other and fitted his first.

Same here, my HDR will 4 years old in a week or two, never had a problem with it.
At the moment I don't feel the need to rush out and get the new <FreeTime> Humax box even if it does have a shiny new EPG, but I may give one ago in few weeks time, I will of course keep my Foxsat HDR connected.

I bought my Foxsat HDR second hand on ebay, so it was much cheaper than normal. It's been flawless tbh and does what I need.

Love the fact that you can copy shows that you've recorded onto a PC to keep, something that you simply can't do with a Sky box.

So for me, has it been worth it? Absolutely.

You can't really start off a discussion asking if Freesat is value for money and then use an example of someone whose gone through 3 boxes in an unknown amount of time, for unspecified reasons. For all we know he bought a new one because he fancied one in pink!


What does that even mean? You have warranties if things go wrong and can contact the manufacturer, of which there are quite a few. I'm not sure beyond that what support you need? Heck, even if you need help changing channels or retuning there's a telephone support line you can call.

The boxes function just like TVs. You buy it outright, and if there are issues, you talk to the retailer or manufacturer. And if there aren't, you enjoy the increasing value for money that your initial investment made as time goes on.

When you buy a Freesat box, it's equivalent to buying a Freeview TV: connect a means of capturing the broadcast (aerial or dish) and you're done.

Comparing Freesat PVRs with a content subscription service like SKY, doesn't make sense at all. With Freesat/Freeview the content is free. With SKY you pay specifically for the content, and their boxes are there as a means to that end.

Let me counter your daft neighbour example that Freesat (and let's throw in Freeview for that matter) might not be value for money compared to SKY. Someone buys a Freesat/Freeview PVR. They pay £250 for it. They keep it for 3 years before upgrading. In that time (as per your example of paying £250 per year in subscription costs) the SKY customer has paid £750 (assuming no price increases).

That sounds like straight-up value for money to me!

But, of course, what renders this all moot is that the SKY customer is subscribing for content, so it's apples and oranges.

Only if the SKY customer is happy with FTA content (as carried by Freesat/Freeview) would they be straight-up better off switching to a sub-free service like Free(sat/view) and be silly not to do so.

In 3 yrs a Sky pvr will cost you an additional £60-£70.00 in additional electricity costs as well as the subscription fees.

"Methinks, by most, 'twill be confess'd
That Death is never quite a welcome guest."

Faust

As far as I'm aware my neighbour hasn't had any hardware faults, it's simply that the early boxes have been left behind by advances in technology - or so he says. As I don't own one I cannot comment.

I don't think I ever said that Sky is better value. I was simply saying that from what I've managed to glean from various articles going the FreeSat/Freeview route isn't simply a one off cost then forget it either. The boxes can it appears be left behind by technology and depending on when in the cycle you buy that can be sooner rather than later.

Your comment about power usage costs has me puzzled though. Don't FreeSat PVRs use electric?

Yes, but not as much was the point that was being made

Well you commented in post 3 and said.......

"Neighbours PVRs are Humax - early adopter, now on box 3. Think latest issue is he wants the on demand services etc. Not sure what the others were replaced for, hardware I think."

Maybe your neighbour just replaced their 320Gb HDR with a 1Tb HDR, I presume Sky boxes can do that OTA. (I just bought a 1Tb disc and popped it in myself)
The Foxsat HDR can get all the On Demand services promised to it and available now. The Humax just out will be able to get 4OD etc and it has the new FreeTime guide.

My Foxsat HDR is 4 years old and technology does move on, but it is still a very good PVR.

A Sky pvr in sby uses about 22W of power (it's not really in sby at all just has no video output). A new G2 HDR-1000s has a sby power consumption of 0.5W (G1 boxes 0.75W).

That's more than 40 times as much energy.

Say in sby 16hrs/day over 3 years the Sky box will use about £58.00 of Electricity assuming 15p/unit, the G2 box about £1.30.

To answer your question, "Freesat - is it really good value for money?" since most of the reasons for doubt are baseless/marginal/irrelevant:

Yes. Freesat really is good value for money.

I think that about covers it.

Maybe I have not been paying enough attention - do they already have a dish? If not a "new" customer Sky deal may well be a better deal.

You are probably correct - Maybe you have not been paying enough attention.

I suppose that depends how much power usage costs bother you. I never shut down my computers - three of them, always in sleep mode, I own a fairly oldish Plasma TV so another 300 or so watts etc. and always leave appliances in standby. I prefer convenience to cost.

I'm not sure why you guys are so defensive when people pose perfectly reasonable questions?

I never said or was trying to say that Sky was somehow better value, simply that FreeSat or Freeview may also have "hidden costs".

Forget my neighbours 3 boxes for the time being and answer me this one. If I had been an early adopter of FreeSat or Freeview would I now be able to access all the services and channels that are currently available on the latest boxes, including 4 on demand and 5 on demand when they are eventually launched? If the answer is NO then there can be an ongoing cost of updating the hardware, which is why I think my neighbour has had more than one box.

It's not the end of life as we know it if the answer is NO, rather it simply answers the question I posed at the start of the thread.

I already answered most of that question regarding Freesat & the Humax boxes. That would be post #16 the last 3 lines. To answer your other point, Yes as an early adopter I can get all the Freesat channels and I can record them and watch programs at my leisure.

Talking of questions posed at the start of the thread.

Surely how good a value will depend on how much time an individual has spare to sit and watch TV and what channels they actually watch ! Some Sky subscribers get better value for their money than others.

You're quite a late adopter, then. Early adopters didn't get a PVR.

Early adopters would now have to be on their third box to be up to date with Freesat's developments.

Adding a non recording set top box is completely disengous. It's like saying if you had a Sky box then it would be capable of using all Sky's services.

Same number of boxes Sky Sky+ Sky-HD




Humax first Freesat+ pvr November 2008 (the first available), Humax 2nd generation Freesat+ pvr November 2012.

Which is the missing link ?