May 2008. First Freesat boxes launched were single tuner.

So what, so were the first Sky boxes. By the way do Sky boxes actually have 4OD ? I think not till next year.

Are you saying the OP asked about getting his relative a Christmas presents on the wrong Freesat forum ?

This is the Freesat+ forum and I bought the first Freesat+ PVR available. I believe that was 7/8 months after launch and now my box is 4 years old.(In a few days time)

First available to a very few who ordered early in late November 2008. December before any amount became available. A large consignment was nicked around this time.

The Foxsat-HD was out a few months earlier but as you say wasn't a Freesat+ box.

Yes mine got nicked. This an e-mail I got at the time.

"Hi,

The delays continue unfortunately. We were expecting stock on Tuesday and Thursday that would have completed all outstanding orders. That was correct until Monday morning when Humax had a lorry full of PVR's heading for our distributors stolen!
We are now expecting stock on Monday, although as usual, we cannot guarantee this as we are in the hands of Humax, just like all the other independent retailers.
Sorry that it's not particularly good news, but your order is still with us, and will get to you as urgently as possible.

Best regards"


This time round Humax wouldn't supply them (Satbuyer) with stock, now they have finally relaxed their distribution policy, there is no stock of the 1Tb in the country.

Which is exactly at the point my neighbour says he's at. I'm not sure the early adopters would also be able to get the "On Demand" services either or correct me if that assumption is wrong?

So the original heading to this post 'Is it good value for money?' has nothing to do with money? Or did I miss the relevance of Freesat being cheaper by £50 just in electricity?

The Foxsat-hd got the same on demand services as the later Foxsat-hdr, unlike most other Freesat TV's/Set Top Boxes. Namely BBC iplayer and ITV player plus a paid for on demand service.

Not sure why there is so much hoo hah about vod services

There is now so many other ways to access these that it hardly seems an issue.

Games consoles like the PS3, blu-ray players, PC's including laptops, smart TV's and media players to name just a few. Look at a WD Live TV box for around £100.00 for example, or a Blu-ray player at a similar price.

Didn't get any of these to get vod for example but I can get vod services from

Foxsat-hdr, Virgin Media SD box (free with broadband), Sony smart TV, HD Fox T2, HDR FOX T2, Sony PS3, Wii console, Android tablet, HDR-1000S and of course my laptop with hdmi out.

Despite all this I just record what I want to watch in full quality so it's very rare I ever use any of them.

What amazes me is the posters on here that clearly have PC's that most can presumably access any vod services they are complaining box X Y Z can't do.

I can only assume they don't know what the kit they already have is capable of.

Speaking for myself, it was everything below the question and the way it was phrased. It could easily be read as disingenuous, with more than a twist of trolling. If that wasn't your intent, then fair enough, but it still reads like that.


As per your example, if you bought the first launched PVR, you would get all the channels. But not all the new innovations and add-ons.

You would get all the recently launched channels like 4seven, Fashion One, Capital TV, Heart TV, AKA, etc, and would continue to get any launched in the future.

You would only get additional add-ons like 4OD if the manufacturer of your box released them for it. So far none of them have (apart form Humax with their HDR and ITV Player) so you'd have to get a <freetime> box for those.

I don't know when the first PVR was released. I think the Humax was released four years ago and cost £300. It would still be usable today (natural hardware-aging allowing) for all the core services (ie. channels). I don't know what the SKY subs were four years ago, but (in my ignorance) assuming they were £200, £225, £250 and £250, that's a total of the best part of a thousand pounds.

Leaving aside the fact that you can't compare a content subscription service with a hardware device and free content in terms of value for money as they're quite different - unlike, comparing Virgin and Sky who offer equivalent services - and render this entire exercise pointless, as I've said before ... that's a pretty large difference in money spent. Even allowing for Freesat devices' greater energy efficiency.

As I understand it, you don't automatically get new hardware when Sky releases a new box, and even then have to pay for it.

If you wanted the new features of <freetime> you would (shock) have to pay for them. Becasue Freesat and it's boxes capabilities follow the model of ANY AND ALL technology - from iPads to laptops, from Smart TVs to HiFi systems: some new innovations and functions require new hardware to operate.

In the case of a Freesat device, whether it's worth paying £300 for a box capable of displaying 4OD and the other catchup services, is something only the buyer can decide. For basic TV watching, their initial investment would continue to appreciate in value whereas the Sky viewer would contuinue having to invest, merely to stand still.

Assuming they did want the new shiny things, however, after paying £75 per year for the previous 4 years' worth of box usage, and paying the same for the next 4 years, and comparing that to at least £2000 for SKY, well... even though it's not like-for-like, I think the answer's there.

Over eight years: £600 vs £2000+

Q. Freesat - is it really good value for money?
A. Yes.

What is it with you people - can you not answer the simplest of questions - it's not a trick no one is asking you for money? The box isn't for me, I have got Sky+HD and a Panny DVDR. I asked if Freesat/Freeview is what it appears at first glance i.e. good value for money or are there hidden costs that the average person may not think about. Example - do the boxes get regular updates to keep up with changes e.g. can/has the on demand services been added to the older boxes like mine has with Sky or would the user have to buy another newer box?

Chill out and try giving people honest information.

To give a straight answer my 1st generation Humax Foxsat pvr has had some on demand services added during its lifetime, but has not had all those available on a next generation Freesat pvr.

In contrast my 1st generation Sky+ HD pvr has had no on demand services added. Neither had my previous 2 Sky+ pvr boxes. These Sky pvrs all cost me between £200 and £300 each, in addition to the Sky subs.

I only expect to get the features available when I buy the machine. If new services are added that is a bonus. If new services require a new machine I expect to be charged for it, whether from Freesat or Sky. I do not regard this as a hidden cost.

It seems some posters are looking for an anti Freesat intent that clearly is not on the OPs agenda

well theres 3 new channels moving to the freesat platform as of Monday 3rd Dec

Sky News - 202
Pick TV - 144
Challenge - 145


just gets better

all need now is Quest to come over

Hear Hear

Thank you for the support - yes, all I wanted was to try to evaluate the pros and cons of the freesat/freeview PVR platforms. The person we are buying the box for is getting on a bit and does tend to forget things. Therefore I was hoping that all the on demand services were or would be available with the current boxes available.

Before anyone chirps up that 4OD and 5 aren't yet available, even on Sky - yes I know.

Doesn't that also work the other way? There may be hidden benefits that the average person may not think about.
When that was pointed out, it was dismissed as having no relevance. Which in a 'value for money' thread was puzzling.

This is for an elderly relative living on their own, I was simply trying to make sure that what we buy them is likely to have most of the things they will make use of. It was through talking to an neighbour that first alerted me to upgrades to hardware that hadn't crossed my mind. I think someone pointed out that the as there were no subs it was better value than Sky, then someone else pointed out that the box uses less juice than a Sky box. Well as our relative was never going to be getting a Sky box I really fail to see the relevance. Now what else is it I may have missed?

More info is always better, any reason why you ruled out Sky ? You could of got them a second hand Sky HD box (with Freesat card) and put a dish up for them. Possibly as an elderly relative they wouldn't be that bothered about having On Demand content ?
What TV do they watch at the moment, what are their other options if Free sat/view are ruled out due to the reasons you have stated.

The lack of 4 & 5 OD on the Humax Foxsat HDR is a big deal for you and others but some people just watchTV, my father has a basic Foxsat HD box and he isn't at all interested in VOD or PVR's.

If your elderly relative is the opposite of my father and into the very latest tech, then surely they must have an idea of what services channels they require and can get via Sat, BB or Terrestrial means.

Edit: Sorry I forgot no Free PVR recording with that option or On Demand. Is their a monthly budget for TV services if the Free options don't meet with your approval ?

If Quest and the UKTV FTA channels were to join then that would put Freesat on an equal footing with Freeview.

(1) As far as I know you cannot use the record function of the Sky+ box without having had at least the minimum one year subscription and even then you have to pay £10 per month with a Freesat card to use record.

(2) I wanted the user to have the "on demand" services so that even if my relative forgets to set a recording or misses the series link they will still have the option of "catch up"

(3) I haven't ruled out Freesat/Freeview, quite the opposite. I was merely trying to tease out if there are hidden costs e.g. has there been a need to make reasonably frequent upgrades to hardware.

(4) I'm trying to get my relative a PVR that has all the current services with hopefully 4OD and 5 added in the not to distant future.

I hope that your relative has a good broadband connection. Receiving catchup TV. Lovefilm etc, via the internet is something modern TVs can do.

You can only buy the currently available products and there will probably always be new features which only new products support.

My wife is very happy with out 7 year old Topfield Freeview PVR. It has out lasted the original TV it was connected to.:yawn:

Well I think the New Humax ticks all those boxes and the backward EPG should be easy enough to work, even my father might use that for On Demand TV.
Satellite does seem to be a good bet for the future, more space and Channels than Freeview.

Regarding hidden costs, personally I haven't noticed any in the last four years and I haven't needed to make any upgrades to hardware apart from adding a 1Tb HDD for extra storage. If you buy a 1000S and it is connected to a good dish set up and BB connection it should eventually get all the OD Services promised to it and receive all the Channels on the Freesat EPG, if anything new is added then that's a bonus, of course Channels are also removed. (Ignore the pictures on the 1000s box YouTube etc Freesat jumped the gun there.)
Hopefully it would carry on working well past it's 2 year warranty, but who knows ! My 4 year old HDR is still working faultlessly and it gets every service and channel it was supposed to get. I can understand why some recent buyers of the Foxsat HDR are annoyed, but unfortunately that happens, I bought the brand new iPad 3 in March and it has already been replaced with a faster iPad with a nice little FireWire interface.

Obviously any satellite box will be obsolete eventually, I have a few that need to be recycled, unfortunately they aren't capable of receiving the channels I actually want to watch i.e. High Definition Channels. I don't regard progress as a problem, I like watching HD programmes on my 50" TV via HDMI rather than analog/digital satellite TV on a small CRT via SCART and if I buy films they are on Blu-ray not DVD.
If you want to be up to date with the latest developments in technology and have the best it quite often involves new hardware and they generally don't give it away for free.

Freesat is very very good value i got my Freesat HD box 2 days ago i had Freeview before and a Sky sub to the Entertaiment and Entertainment Extra pack and cancelled my sky last week cause i wanted to rid of it and still make use of having to record my shows , Sky wanted me to pay a monthly fee to keep the recording function working but Freesat dont require a monthly fee for the same thing.

Nobody can determine what's going to happen in the future, but generally speaking, buying a Freesat G2 box now, will be future proof as much as anything is (ie. broadly, in the respects that matter). 4OD and 5 on demand will be added and are part of the spec. There may even be pay services added (though IPTV) but that's in discussion and in no way certain. Other services can be added on the <freetime> platform too, in a way that G1 devices can't manage, but that's dependent on content producers/platform operators and Freesat.

I can't think of any services in terms of free to air TV and its associated content delivery that exists now that won't be included in the <freetime> boxes.

Technologically, the next thing on the horizon is 4K TV - super HD - but that'd require a new display, a new decoder box and may not happen for a decade, at least.

Beyond that, there will always be "hidden costs" in buying new tech - whoever its from and whatever it is - if you're on the 'must have the new shiny thing' treadmill.

The only other thing I can think of is that to get the catchup service on any platform except for Virgin - where it's all part of the requirement for service - there is the "hidden cost" of needing an ISP. That in turn has the "hidden cost" of needing to pay line rental to someone.

I'll just end by saying that I don't think anything you've mentioned in your posts (or seen mentioned in this thread by others) is a rational basis for even suspecting that there are hidden costs, to be honest.