[n3ntj]

I've noticed with the recent (or possibly past few) national software versions that I often need to enter channel numbers at least 2 times when typing in a new channel. This is very annoying and causes delay in getting to a new channel. This doesn't happen using the UP or DOWN buttons, so it's not a battery issue.

For example, I type in 206. My IRD's display pops up and shows "206" but doesn't actually change the channel. After a few secs., the display reverts back to the channel I was originally on. Then I need to type in 206 again. I see this on both of my IRDs (HR22-100 and HR24-200).

Anyone else seeing this issue recently (approx. the past month or so)? I don't know when the latest national software release came out, so I can't directly link when the software was pushed vs. when the issue started.

 

[sabrewulf]

I get that issue to and is very annoying. Alot of the time I cant get numbers to work and I have to hit the number button more than once.

 

[jimmie57]

Try this and see what it does.
Press the Guide button and then type in the new number and press Select.

If you have to press a button multiple times it is possible that the batteries are weak or it is possible that the remote is worn out.
If you have a computer with a camera, get a live picture on the screen and hold the remote pointed at the camera. The camera can see the light that is emitted from the remote even tho our eyes can not. You can see it on the screen.

 

[RAD]

Also pressing enter first to bring up the mini guide first and then entering the numbers also helps. Not a fix but a circumvention until DIRECTV can resolve the issue.

 

[xmguy]

I get it too on both my HR24 and HR21. I'll press for example 202 for CNNHD and 02 will come up or 2222. Might take me 8 times to get to it. Sometimes I just use the guide. I know my batteries are good too. I might need to clear the NVRAM.

 

[Steve]

For example, I type in 206. My IRD's display pops up and shows "206" but doesn't actually change the channel. After a few secs., the display reverts back to the channel I was originally on. Then I need to type in 206 again. I see this on both of my IRDs (HR22-100 and HR24-200).

Anyone else seeing this issue recently (approx. the past month or so)?

Yes. Can't recall exactly when it started, but definitely seems to be happening more often than in the past.

I get that issue to and is very annoying. Alot of the time I cant get numbers to work and I have to hit the number button more than once.

Ditto. And sometimes the numbers are received, but not displayed, so keying the # in again winds up duplicating it, often switching to the wrong channel. Extremely annoying.

 

[raromr]

Same here on one HR24. Very slow response and not a battery issue.

 

[dpeters11]

Or try this

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=184693

Does not apply if not using the stock remote.

 

[acostapimps]

What you should do is open the guide up and scroll really fast if you have scrolling effects off, and then try surfing through channels really fast, and then try to enter the channel number it always work temporarily then sometimes you gotta do it all over again

 

[Mike Greer]

Also pressing enter first to bring up the mini guide first and then entering the numbers also helps. Not a fix but a circumvention until DIRECTV can resolve the issue.

These troubles with the remote not responding, blank screens when you first power etc have been around for years... How long until DirecTV can resolve the issue??

 

[TomCat]

...If you have a computer with a camera, get a live picture on the screen and hold the remote pointed at the camera. The camera can see the light that is emitted from the remote even tho our eyes can not. You can see it on the screen.

Let's hold the phone here just for a minute, Jimmie. That is a pretty incredible claim to be making.

If that were actually possible, that would mean that a conventional camera sensor or even a cheap "Skype" camera has the ability to see infrared light (which exists in a different yet close-by spectrum) or RF energy (which exists in a completely different spectrum) and then also has the ability to change that to something that becomes visible either through the camera viewfinder or in a photograph. An infrared camera might have that capability, and the autistic kid on Alphas does, but no conventional camera does.

As it stands, camera sensors typically have less ability to see the full spectrum of even visible light than the human eye can, and what the human eye can see is called the "visible spectrum" for a very good reason. But IR and RF do not coincide with the visible spectrum in any way whatsoever, and conventional cameras can neither see IR and RF, nor can they display it on a "screen". Maybe you have an infrared camera that can do that, but the rest of us probably don't.

RatShack used to make a little plastic card that would convert IR to visible light (you clicked a remote at it and it would glow). I wish I still had one. They came in very handy way back in the day when I was doing cable TV service calls.

 

[RAD]

These troubles with the remote not responding, blank screens when you first power etc have been around for years... How long until DirecTV can resolve the issue??

My experience has been some releases have the problem while others don't.

 

[TomCat]

These troubles with the remote not responding, blank screens when you first power etc have been around for years... How long until DirecTV can resolve the issue??

That is an excellent, if loaded, question. One would have to assume that it just has never been a priority, which is ludicrous, because if I owned a service company such as this, having the equipment capable and having the ability to perform in a timely and reliable fashion would be number one, as I think it is a primary driver to customer satisfaction and lowering churn rates.

DTV plainly disagrees with that viewpoint, sadly.

It can be done; their only DBS competitor has been making snappy STB and DVR interfaces since day one, which was nearly a decade and a half ago by now. My best guess is it is a matter of underpowered CPUs in DVRs that have been overloaded with too many crap-apps and secondary responsibilities, along with an SD UI that has been retrofitted with an HD UI. It's an old story, but 8 pounds of $#!+ has never been able to fit comfortably in a 5-pound bag.

I think you can blame this on a wrong-headed focus; it's a cart-before-the-horse situation. I need a DVR that does the basic job of a DVR reliably. I don't need useless apps or the ability for it to record 6 channels at once or serve video over a home network to client receivers. Make the basic workhorse DVR quick and reliable first; then worry about embellishments.

You [DTV] think you are losing subs because you don't have a Hopper, so you try to rename and make the Genie the Mitt Romney pretender to confuse us into thinking we might be getting Hopper-level quality (which isn't that great to begin with)? Sorry, you are losing subs because your DVRs suck balls in the performance department by comparison to those from DISH and others, and you are shooting yourselves in the foot by loading them up with useless options to compete or stem the flow of subs out the door which just compounds the problem rather than solves it. To do what they want to do, they need a bigger boat. We likely will not see any relief until they provide us with more-powerful DVRs that are designed better. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[veryoldschool]

Let's hold the phone here just for a minute, Jimmie. That is a pretty incredible claim to be making.

While it might seem that way, there have been articles and photos of the remote "lights", so it seems to be true.

 

[TomCat]

While it might seem that way, there have been articles and photos of the remote "lights", so it seems to be true.

Not really. Until someone shows us and verifies those pictures, it still "seems" not to be true, unless there has been some recent development that somehow got by me or the laws of physics have just been repealed. Maybe still "not" even after seeing them. One good photo with full embedded metadata might be a good start here. A link to a believable article or two could even seal the deal. Tick tock....

But as always, I can be skeptical and still have an open mind. As proof of that, and just for grins I just tried this with an iPad camera, and it failed miserably, so if that qualifies as a "computer with a camera", which is an unfortunately nebulous and vague requirement, I just proved that it can't be true, at least not all of the time. Maybe this was just a hoax to get me to do something that stupid. If so, congrats.

But Jimmie might be absolutely correct, and if he is, kudos, and I will happily admit my skepticism was misplaced, right here in black and white for all to see, even haters. I did not deride him, I just neutrally stated my skepticism, which is probably pretty normal and expected. I'm only here to learn what Jimmie and the rest of you might know that I don't, as well as to help everyone else in the same way.

Vampires might be real too, and while I am also skeptical of that, never say never. I'd love to see them (the pix proving a "computer with a camera" can make IR visible that is, not so much the vampires). I've actually seen pictures of vampires, and I still am just a little skeptical about them being real, so put away your PhotoShop; that probably won't count.

Hey, if I'm allowed one "wrong" per year, this could be it!

 

[veryoldschool]

Not really. Until someone shows us and verifies those pictures, it still "seems" not to be true,

I get your point, but I know who wrote one of the articles and took the photos, so that was "good enough" for me.

Try it yourself

 

[Mike Greer]

My experience has been some releases have the problem while others don't.

Agreed - but when are they going to get around to fixing it? You'd think that after what, 5 years now, they would have been able to make the remote response at least half as good as Dish Networks receivers!:lol:

 

[Mike Greer]

That is an excellent, if loaded, question.

Wow TomCat - why do you always sugarcoat everything?!

 

[TomCat]

Wow TomCat - why do you always sugarcoat everything?!

Well, the internet is like a box of chocolates, to paraphrase a certain fictional shrimp-loving long-distance runner we all love. You ask a question, and you may get any sort of answer. And to paraphrase my mother, "ask a silly question; get a silly answer". I think neither your question nor my answer were silly, but you did open the door. How would you have me respond? If you'd just as soon I wouldn't, well that could be a problem for you.

 

[jimmie57]

While it might seem that way, there have been articles and photos of the remote "lights", so it seems to be true.

I read about this or saw a video on You Tube about it.
I have a laptop and did the experiment. It works for sure. I found that I had worn out several of the buttons on my remote doing this experiment.

Also, my sister installed 2 cameras at my 89 year old mother's house in Georgia so that we could log on to them and see if she is OK.
When I am watching her sometimes and she is watching TV, I can see every press of the button of her remote from the light on the end.

I posted this on the DTV forum several months ago and a few over there tried it and also verified that it does work.

Not a problem with the ones that doubt it. I was one til I proved it to myself.

LOL. Did not know I could do that. LOL

Video taken with my Lenovo Laptop camera showing it working in the attachment.