Reviews - Humax FOXSAT-HDR: subscription-free HDTV heaven?

[HEXUS]

We take a look at the first Freesat+ PVR. With the promise of subscription-free HD, is it as good as it sounds?

Read more.

[Funkstar]

you say it has three LNB sockets, but you don't say what the third one is for. Looking at the photo, it's an output. What does that do?

Useful for some, perhaps, but we prefer a nice, simple and small remote for TV viewing - the traditional Sky remote being a prime example.

A Sky remote might be simple, but it has the numbers in the worst possible place. Bugs the hell out of me trying to punch in 240 for RealTime or 520 for the Discovery channel on a Sky box (The standard MCE remote suffers from this as well, otherwise they are both good remotes).

Oh and a tip: don't use a flash for taking photos of a TV.

[dave87]

Purely from a cost point of view, I don't see how Freesat HD with the (brilliant, but pricey) Foxsat HDR can compete against Sky HD.

Comparing the costs:

Freesat

Freesat HDR - £299 - as quoted in the article.
Installation - £80-100 - ditto
Subscription - none. nada. zip.

So total year 1 cost, in one go of £379-400.

Sky HD

Sky HD box - £29
Installation - Free
Subscription - £30.25 or there abouts (figures from memory)*

*Mid range package (no sports or movies, but 4 of the entertainment mixes + the HD subscription)

So price for the year? £392.


Oh, and at the moment Sky are offering HD subscribers £30 cashback on their second bill, providing they keep HD for a year, so £362.


So you get a years worth of premium content, a HD recorder (which is not specifications wise as good as the Humax, but still good) and the installation sorted. So the premium content is free, basically. If you don't want the premium content, then cancel after the 12 month contract.

I know which I would, and indeed did, choose.

The other key advantage is though I had £400 sitting in my bank account when I signed up for sky, I'd rather not give it away in one go. Paying less over a year works out well


EDIT - seem to skip the value proposition page, so this is kinda duplicated - have come out with slightly different figures though.

[Stoo]

If you've had Sky before you and still have the dish and cables etc then obviously it's a fair bit cheaper, and as the table shows, the longer you keep it the better the value as you don't have the subscription.

The biggest downfall imho is the lack of HD channels, which tbh is the whole point..

[dave87]

Well that was what I was hoping to point out with my post above.

Have SkyHD for a year, you cancel after the 12month contract, and you keep the box, dish and features. Just lose the premium content - so in exactly the same position as paying for the Foxsat HDR box.

[3dcandy]

Tempted, but only because we got Sky+HD already, which means a 4 output lnb and cables already in place making for a real easy install. Don't like the fact that Sky subscriptions are very high, plus as we get no terrestial tv at all, with no real chance of ever getting it soon, it may be the only way we can move away from Sky....

[jimborae]

Well that was what I was hoping to point out with my post above.

Have SkyHD for a year, you cancel after the 12month contract, and you keep the box, dish and features. Just lose the premium content - so in exactly the same position as paying for the Foxsat HDR box.

Sky HD+ is £49 not £29 (only £29 if you buy a new tv from some retailers). Also if you cancel your sub after 12 months you loose all PVR funtionality, so you cant record anthing or watch previously recorded programmes.

Basically if you want HD & PVR you're in a catch 22, either pay the exorbatant Sky tax (like me) and have to replace the crap hard disk and psu capacitors or go the Freesat route and have a quality box but virtually no HD channels.

[tigertop1]

One other possibility not so far mentioned is this. Buy a reconditioned Foxsat HD receiver from Humax for around £90. Use it to get HD but also use your existing PVR, mine is a Humax 9200T, to get TV recording via the terrestial signal which can remain plugged into your TV. (The Foxsat signal will not record onto existing terrestial PVRs. ) If you already have a dish and a PVR you can enjoy the best of both worlds for £90

[dave87]

Sky HD+ is £49 not £29 (only £29 if you buy a new tv from some retailers). Also if you cancel your sub after 12 months you loose all PVR funtionality, so you cant record anthing or watch previously recorded programmes.

Basically if you want HD & PVR you're in a catch 22, either pay the exorbatant Sky tax (like me) and have to replace the crap hard disk and psu capacitors or go the Freesat route and have a quality box but virtually no HD channels.

Ah, had seen the promotions but didn't read the T&Cs.


Didn't know they switched off the recording functionality though, as considering the box is now owned by the customer after 12months, I fear they are on dodgy ground...

[3dcandy]

Ah, had seen the promotions but didn't read the T&Cs.


Didn't know they switched off the recording functionality though, as considering the box is now owned by the customer after 12months, I fear they are on dodgy ground...

Been through this loads of times....if you look in the t&c's you are actually paying for hardware AND the right to record when you pay your subscription. For example, my wife had a serious car crash 2 years ago, couldn't work, and we struggled to make ends meet, and nearly every month we were late paying Sky. As soon as you didn't pay them, PVR functionality is turned off, even for the things you have already recorded, and you lose 90% of the channels. As we don't get any other telly currently, we had to stump up the money....Sky tax is certainly is, and also recently, the standard of customer care has gone right out of the window, with many calls now taken by Indian call centre workers who don't have a clue. Just because of the crap service, as soon as we can go down a different route, we shall, and stuff Sky....

[jimborae]

........... Just because of the crap service, as soon as we can go down a different route, we shall, and stuff Sky....

qft my friend. Sky screw us but there is no other viable HD service atm.

[Tunnah]

i don't think the sky rates are accurate in the slightest - to get certain channels you need to be already outlaying a subscription charge for the SD version of the HD equivilent

i pay i reckon about £90/month maybe more atm, but thats 1 HD, 1 +, max BB and phone

[DeludedGuy]

i don't think the sky rates are accurate in the slightest - to get certain channels you need to be already outlaying a subscription charge for the SD version of the HD equivilent

i pay i reckon about £90/month maybe more atm, but thats 1 HD, 1 +, max BB and phone

So you dont know exaclty how much you are paying a month?

[shaithis]

FreeViewHD is a complete joke IMO.

£300 for a box that gives you 2 HD channels? Maybe once all terrestrial channels are broadcast in HD it may be worthwhile but currently, if you want HD programming: sky is the only choice.

With the new Sky EPG you can add ITVHD as well, meaning the one piece of exclusivity that Freesat had is now gone.

[bradyjames]

Sky is OK as long as you want lots of channels but you have to pay a subscription with Sky. The HDR does not require a subscription for HD channels or for to be able to use the PVR functions. I've ditched Sky because 95% of what I was watching was Freeview anyway so I didn't see the point in paying for something I hardly use.

[dangel]

I'm just going to bang a Freesat HD card in my media center - it's cheap and I don't miss (Sky+) at all tbh (it's quite limited in functionality by comparison). So my year 1 is probably about 70quid, and thenafter nothing at all. And yup, my sky+ box reverted to being single channel, no record as soon as I stopped paying sky. Clever bastards.