Re: Remote control delay

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:56:38 -0400, rfdjr1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:49:04 -0700, "CLicker@xxxxxxxxxxx" <CLicker> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:59:43 -0400, Rick at Folk U.S.A. wrote:

We have two Scientific Atlanta HD DVR boxes from Cablevision of Connecticut.
Both of them experience delays in accepting commands from the remotes. It
doesn't happen all of the time, but enough to be annoying. An example is simply
changing the channel. Push the button to change to the next higher station and
it can take 10 or 15 seconds for the change to happen. If I get impatient and
push the button a second time, when the command finally goes through, the
channel goes up two stations. I've talked to two different Cablevision "support"
people about it, including one "higher up" tech and no one seems to understand
why this is happening. So they had a techniciam come out last week. Of course,
it didn't happen while he was checking things out. But he said he's heard of the
problem from other people. His answer? Just deal with it. This really pissed me
off. Does anyone know of any inherent problems with these boxes and the remote
signals having a delay? Thanks.

<rant>
We're on TWC (Time Warner Cable) in SoCal. We (she and I) have
different temperaments and tolerances toward third world programmers
who are cutting their teeth in American jobs and delivering SH!T to
our out-of-work too-much-time-on-their-hands consumers. As a result,
her TVs have Moto DVRs, ours have had both Moto & SA DVRs - which
both exhibited such poor response to ANY remote command that I finally
gave up using any box at all from TWC. I'd rather wait a year or more
for the shows of interest to be delivered by NetFlix than irritate
myself every time I pick up the remote. As for news or other
immediate TV info, the TV (undoubtedly programmed in a different third
world country) responds fine to its remote and connects directly to
the cable for more than 100 channels, so why bother? Oh yeah, there
are fewer than a dozen of those 100 I'd ever tune to but hey, paying
for the boxes and premium "tiers" they unlock doesn't have much of an
effect on that number.
</rant>

We used to be able to hook a cable directly to a TV and get basic channels with
no premium service. I even had a TV capture card on my computer so I could watch
the news, weather, and a few local channels in my den. Then last year our cable
company, Cablevision, decided they were losing money like this and now prevents
people from doing so. Now you HAVE to have a box for each TV you want to use.
And of course, each box and remote is more on your monthly bill.

The only thing I can think of to do is to look at the remote's output
using a digital camera's LCD finder to see the infrared signal. Most
camera sensors are quite sensitive in the IR, so you will see a big
white flash coming from the remote.

If the remote is sending a long signal (like 38 seconds), it will become
evident.

To be explicit: turn the camera on in camera mode, and set it up on a
table or tripod, facing away from you. Point the remote at the lens from
the front and press a button while looking at the LCD panel on the
camera. Or put a mirror in front of the camera so you can shoot the
remote from behind (or put the mirror behind the camera and work from
the front).

Actually I can think of another thing. Some programmable remotes (such
as the Philips Pronto TSU3500) can learn a signal from a remote in the
usual fashion, but they will let you look at the actual signal packet
(in hex) once you've done that. Then what? I have no idea...

I guess I'm brainstorming - I now have more ideas. I wonder what would
happen if you used a generic multi-device remoter (the $5 or $10 ones,
not the Harmony!). Get a learning remote. First try setting it up using
its code for your cable box and see if the behavior persists. Then try
teaching commands to it from your cable-company remote, and see if the
behaviour persists.

Try different distances from the Scientific Atlanta remote to the cable
box as well.

Unfortunately, I suspect that all of the above ideas could keep you busy
for weeks and end up achieving nothing. Your situation is definitely
crazy-making, and I wish I had a real idea.

Well, the above ideas *are* real, and in your shoes, I would probably
enjoy playing with the remote and the DVR as described above, but you
just might not agree :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Problem with services
    ... |I am very new to .NET and Windows programming in general so please bare ... | Windows and the preferred method is to use net commands. ... a remote server, the reason is that SCM runs as SYSTEM ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Cellphone RF interference
    ... I'm using a LT1495 op-amp in a non-inverting mode with gain at 100 on ... radiation etc but the phone needs to stay live to accept remote commands ... are affecting the readings. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: [RFC v2] Another approach to IR
    ... configuration files in default cases. ... commands for all of the common devices. ... Everything will "just work" - no LIRC, ... You are making one big wrong assumption that everyone that has a remote ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: help with remote input commands thru rsh
    ... didn't know how to send commands in my shell script to the remote ... A lot depends on what is running on the remote system, ... (there are a number of them besides 'rsh') ... OK, first - root is _RARELY_ allowed to log in over the network, ...
    (comp.os.linux.embedded)
  • Re: [opensuse] How can I give the password to an ssh session on the command line?
    ... The "remote" is a router with embedded, ... not possible to create public key pairs because it is not a shell, ... or whether it was even possible to copy files onto the router. ... But none of the commands are "shell" commands, it has its own restricted shell. ...
    (SuSE)