# All R15-300 Owners......



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Would someone please look on the back of their unit, find the FCC ID on the label on the back and post it here?

Thanks.


----------



## waughoo (May 8, 2006)

Here is the information off of the bottom of my R15-300:

Complies with 47CFR Part 68 Rules
Registration # 6NHMM00BR15
Ringer Equivalence 0.0B

MFR Code : 300

R15-300


----------



## qwerty (Feb 19, 2006)

We should give waughoo a prize!


----------



## waughoo (May 8, 2006)

Can my prize be the latest update for my R15-300? I want to 30 second skip function and am tired of hearing about it from all of the 500 owners.:nono:


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

waughoo said:


> Here is the information off of the bottom of my R15-300:
> 
> Complies with 47CFR Part 68 Rules
> Registration # 6NHMM00BR15
> ...


I've run into this before. I'd assume 6NHMM00BR15 is the FCC ID yet I can't find that one on the FCC's DB. I've run across some where I cannot find the whole ID but find it by searching through the grantee ID. With "6NH" as the grantee ID I still can't find anything. For some reason I don't think the gov's search is completely working.


----------



## and (Apr 23, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> I've run into this before. I'd assume 6NHMM00BR15 is the FCC ID yet I can't find that one on the FCC's DB. I've run across some where I cannot find the whole ID but find it by searching through the grantee ID. With "6NH" as the grantee ID I still can't find anything. For some reason I don't think the gov's search is completely working.


I also own an R15-300, mine has the same info as waughoo posted before . I know what an FCC ID is and I can tell you for sure that there is no FCC ID # on this unit.:nono2:

edit: If there is no FCC ID # isn't it against FCC rules to connect this device to a phone line?


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

I believe the FCC ID is 6NHMM00BR15, I just can't et the munged up FCC site to find it. I may have to look up the memeber that originally provided the site link and see what he/she knows. Fergg, was that you?


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Try one of these, it's where I do most of my FCC searches:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/genmen/index.hts
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/reports/index.cfm

Carl


----------



## and (Apr 23, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> I believe the FCC ID is 6NHMM00BR15, I just can't et the munged up FCC site to find it. I may have to look up the memeber that originally provided the site link and see what he/she knows. Fergg, was that you?


You probably already know this: according to the FCC website the first three characters is the grantee code, if you search for '6NH' the result is that there are no grantees on file, that's why I think the FCC ID is invalid.
Anyway, we will know the truth some day. :lol:


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

and said:


> You probably already know this: according to the FCC website the first three characters is the grantee code, if you search for '6NH' the result is that there are no grantees on file, that's why I think the FCC ID is invalid.
> Anyway, we will know the truth some day. :lol:


Correct. I'm more questionable about the search DB that site uses. I have more than one instance that when I search for the FCC ID, Grantee and the remining ID #'s it doesn't get a hit. Yet if I search on the Grantee and then browse through their list I can find the same FCC ID. PITA. Don't know how to resolve this at this point.


----------



## mkmhr (Jan 25, 2006)

waughoo said:


> Can my prize be the latest update for my R15-300? I want to 30 second skip function and am tired of hearing about it from all of the 500 owners.:nono:


In all truthfullness about this 30 second slip... it's no big deal. It's fun for about the first 2 days to sit there and test it out, but I've already gone back to just fast fwd at 3 times speed, hit the pause when i see the show and hit the 6 sec jump back 2-3 times and it is just perfect. No real gain with the slip, serious. Have a good one.


----------



## cabanaboy1977 (Nov 16, 2005)

Wolffpack said:


> I've run into this before. I'd assume 6NHMM00BR15 is the FCC ID yet I can't find that one on the FCC's DB. I've run across some where I cannot find the whole ID but find it by searching through the grantee ID. With "6NH" as the grantee ID I still can't find anything. For some reason I don't think the gov's search is completely working.


I'm glad someone finally got you the ID.

What does that do for you. If you could look it up?


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

cabanaboy1977 said:


> I'm glad someone finally got you the ID.
> 
> What does that do for you. If you could look it up?


The contents of the FCC site include pictures, external and internal. It also includes block diagrams which highlight all of the particular chips (major chips) in the unit. We could then compare the block diagram of the R15-500 to that of the -300 and see if it has a different processor, different memory or other chips.


----------



## cabanaboy1977 (Nov 16, 2005)

Wolffpack said:


> The contents of the FCC site include pictures, external and internal. It also includes block diagrams which highlight all of the particular chips (major chips) in the unit. We could then compare the block diagram of the R15-500 to that of the -300 and see if it has a different processor, different memory or other chips.


Ah, so we can finally put the "are they the same" debate to rest.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

cabanaboy1977 said:


> Ah, so we can finally put the "are they the same" debate to rest.


The same or not...correct.


----------



## Palsgraf99 (Mar 17, 2006)

Wolf, according to the FCC grantee search page definition of the grantee code, the code should always begin with an alphabetic character, not a number, and all the codes seem to follow that pattern. That makes me think that the "6NM" cannot be correct.

I have tried searching the FCC DB every way I can think of, but I can only find the Humax version of the box. However, I did find what I believe to be the Philips universal remote that goes with the R15. I even did a search for all Philips applications from 1/1/05 through 12/31/05 and no luck! I also tried putting Directv in the description field and got the Humax R15 as well as the various D11 versions, but still no luck on the Philips box. 

Can anyone with the 300 box send in a photo of your Philips R15 FCC label?


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Palsgraf99 said:


> Wolf, according to the FCC grantee search page definition of the grantee code, the code should always begin with an alphabetic character, not a number, and all the codes seem to follow that pattern. That makes me think that the "6NM" cannot be correct.
> 
> I have tried searching the FCC DB every way I can think of, but I can only find the Humax version of the box. However, I did find what I believe to be the Philips universal remote that goes with the R15. I even did a search for all Philips applications from 1/1/05 through 12/31/05 and no luck! I also tried putting Directv in the description field and got the Humax R15 as well as the various D11 versions, but still no luck on the Philips box.
> 
> Can anyone with the 300 box send in a photo of your Philips R15 FCC label?


I went through those same types of searchs with no luck. However, there is some problem with their search logic. I have a wireless LAN card that I cannot find using the entire FCC ID. To find it I have to search on the grantee code and then page through that grantee's devices. The LAN card is there with the correct FCC ID, but their search page doesn't find it.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Thanks to some pics provided by a member here and after a bit of searching it appears not all SAT receivers/DVRs require a FCC ID. Looking through the UL search DB I did find this info on the -300.

PHILIPS FRANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS DIGITAL NETWORKS	E247870
DIV SET TOP BOXES SURESNES 
51 RUE CARNOT 
BOITE POSTALE 301 
92156 SURESNES CEDEX, FRANCE

Digital Satellite Receiver, Model(s) D10, D10-300 (may be followed with 2 suffixes indicating non safety relevant features), D11 (may be followed with 5 suffixes indicating non-safety relevant features), LR15 (may be followed with 5 suffixes), R15 (may be followed with 5 suffixes indicating non-safety relevant features).

Looking through the FCC DB here's what I've found.

R15-500 manufactured by Humax has a FCC ID
R15-300 manufactured by Philips does not.
D10s manufactured by Samsung have a FCC ID
D10s manufactured by Philips does not.
D11s manufactured by Humax and by Samsung have a FCC ID
D11s manufactured by Philips does not.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Well, there should functionally be no difference that would warrant one requiring FCC ID and another not requiring it.

Both must be compliant with Part 15 rules, but I don't know if it requires filing with the FCC and obtaining an FCC ID number to satisfy that (but I think it does).

Also, both contain an RF modulator (channel 3/4), and again that may or may not require certification, I don't know (and it may also fall under Part 15, not sure).

But if it is required for one, then it would also be required for the other. Therefore, it is either not required for either and Humax and Samsung are doing it voluntarily, or it is required and Phillips is non compliant.

Carl


----------



## MKNY (May 14, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> Thanks to some pics ...


If you can glean any other interesting info from those pics please let us know. Mainly, I'm interested in whether there are any substantial differences that might make one preferable to the other.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

MKNY said:


> If you can glean any other interesting info from those pics please let us know. Mainly, I'm interested in whether there are any substantial differences that might make one preferable to the other.


Here's an internal shot of a -300 and a -500. Thanks for MKNY for the -300 shot. Keeping the HD as a size reference, the -300s are alot smaller. The mainboards also are very different and the -300 seems to have a daughter board just behind the HD. Also, MKNY correct me if I'm wrong, but the -300 seems to have about a third of it's mainboard under the HD. The -500 doesn't have anything under the HD.


----------



## Clint Lamor (Nov 15, 2005)

Wolffpack said:


> Here's an internal shot of a -300 and a -500. Thanks for MKNY for the -300 shot. Keeping the HD as a size reference, the -300s are alot smaller. The mainboards also are very different and the -300 seems to have a daughter board just behind the HD. Also, MKNY correct me if I'm wrong, but the -300 seems to have about a third of it's mainboard under the HD. The -500 doesn't have anything under the HD.


Well first off I didn't expect to see the drive mounted upside down. Next it looks the the 300 is a much lower circuit count, which could explain why a different set of code is needed. I am not sure what the daughter board is for but then again I have never seen the back of the 300 to see whats in it's general area. ow that we have seen they are completely different hardware, it makes me wonder if somewhere along the line on the 500 if a hardware revision happened which could help account for some of the issues some 500's have and some don't.


----------



## cabanaboy1977 (Nov 16, 2005)

Wolffpack said:


> Here's an internal shot of a -300 and a -500. Thanks for MKNY for the -300 shot. Keeping the HD as a size reference, the -300s are alot smaller. The mainboards also are very different and the -300 seems to have a daughter board just behind the HD. Also, MKNY correct me if I'm wrong, but the -300 seems to have about a third of it's mainboard under the HD. The -500 doesn't have anything under the HD.


Why does the 500 have 3 metal boxes in the top right corner and the 300 only has 2? What are those?


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

cabanaboy1977 said:


> Why does the 500 have 3 metal boxes in the top right corner and the 300 only has 2? What are those?


The 2 rightmost are the SAT feeds/tuners. The other on the -500 is for the RF remote. The -300 has one also, it's just a little smaller.

EDIT: Looking closer, maybe not. The third one on the -300 may be the RF in/RF out stack, which is further to the left on the -500. MKNY, is there a connection on the back of the -300 for the RF Antenna?


----------



## cabanaboy1977 (Nov 16, 2005)

Wolffpack said:


> Looking closer, maybe not. The third one on the -300 may be the RF in/RF out stack, which is further to the left on the -500. MKNY, is there a connection on the back of the -300 for the RF Antenna?


Maybe that's what's on the daughter card? Maybe it's the RF


----------



## MKNY (May 14, 2006)

I'll try to answer a couple questions about the layout of easily identifiable hardware but that's about as far as I'm qualified to go.

The third shiny box on the 500 is the RF Remote Antenna jack. The smaller box in the equivalent position on the 300 holds the Off Air In and Out To TV jacks (they are stacked vertically on the 300 instead of side by side as on the 500). The 300 does have an RF Remote Antenna jack but it is farther over behind the HD between the fan and audio jacks. 

The small daughter card in the 300 is positioned above the audio jacks but one corner also covers the RF Remote Antenna jack and could belong to it.

I can't comment on the circuit count. I can give you the overall sizes of the units. The 500 is 15" wide, 11" deep (not counting depth of jacks), and 3.125" high. 
The 300 is 14.25" wide, 8.75" deep (not counting depth of jacks), and 2.5" high.

Also, the 300 uses a 160GB Maxtor HD while the 500 in the picture has a Seagate of the same size.

So, is anyone ready to say which they would prefer to keep?

The 300 is what DTV sent out for my new service installation. When I complained about it they sent refurbed 500s. I wonder if they have discontinued the 500 for new installs?


----------



## MKNY (May 14, 2006)

MKNY said:


> ...the Off Air In and Out To TV jacks (they are stacked vertically on the 300 instead of side by side as on the 500)...


Oops, that statement is wrong, it's the same hardware in the same orientation as the 500.


----------



## d0ug (Mar 22, 2006)

Im not 100% certan, but the HD in the 300 looks like a western digital, the 500's use seagate.

As for the sizes. I would definately like the shorter front to back length of the 300. I have my 500 sitting on top of my TV and its so long, I had to get some large rubber feet to stick to the bottom of the DVR to hold it up where the TV starts to slope back. The dimensions of the 300 seem to be simmlar to my cyberhome DVR 1600 DVD-Recorder, which sits nicely on top of the TV.

Here is how my 500 is perched up on top of the TV if your interested. The thin sheets of rubber are there to raise the back end up just a little more to make it level.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Out of curiosity... what are the other two items?


----------



## d0ug (Mar 22, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Out of curiosity... what are the other two items?


From the bottom up

the TV is a Toshiba 20AF41
next is the R15-500
next is the Cyberhome DVR1600 DVD-Recorder
and the top is Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Theatre 5.1 Dolby Digital decoder box.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

THe HD in the -300 is a Maxtor QuickView.


----------



## cabanaboy1977 (Nov 16, 2005)

Wolffpack, here's some pic's of the inside of the Sky+ box. Looks a little similar to the inside of a 300.


----------

