# Adding a show from NOMAD while traveling.



## likegadgets (Dec 29, 2005)

I ordered the NOMAD - hopefully it will arrive soon.

Will there be a way (or workaround) to adding a show that is on the Nomad to a previously authorized device (iPad) while away from home? 

Sometimes I travel for 2 or 3 weeks and currently use a a method via TiVo to go. The shows are copied to my MAC which I can access remotely and upload the shows to the cloud (to a virtual disk). Then I can just download these from the cloud to my notebook.

Since the device is authorized, and the only difference is the show was not copied to the device before leaving home, would a VPN type setup work.

I would like to ditch the TiVo I still keep just for this.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

At this time there is no way to do that. I don't know if that function will ever come.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

likegadgets said:


> I ordered the NOMAD - hopefully it will arrive soon.
> 
> Will there be a way (or workaround) to adding a show that is on the Nomad to a previously authorized device (iPad) while away from home?
> 
> ...


No ... or at least maybe "not yet";

As currently designed off loading files from nomad can only be done over the same home network the unit is connected to. Not the internet.


----------



## likegadgets (Dec 29, 2005)

Thanks for the replies.

I do understand that it is only over the same home network, so I am wondering if there is a a way for the iPad to connect to the home network so it appears that way to the Nomad - (don't know enough about VPN).

I understand they are protecting the content, but the iPad would still be the authorized device that can otherwise have this content.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I'm able to play pc files that are transferred from the PC client on a desktop to a NAS and then back to a laptop PC Client. Remote access to the desktop at home would let you transcode a file then grab it later.

Not sure when or if this will work on the Mac client (currently unseen).

And the iPad /iPhone client has no file accessibility.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

VPN is something you're going to have to get familiar with as it is certainly going to be part of any such solution.

The fact that it is always a two step process with the near-realtime transcoding process followed by an eventual large download doesn't make for something many will have patience for.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

VPNs won't work for direct play/transcoding. But a quick Remote Desktop to start a transcode, later upload the PC files (.Mp4 and .kfe) for each episode desired to an FTP or Dropbox site, then down both to your remote pc while you're out for dinner, isn't very demanding considering the crappy TV viewing in most hotel / motels - or a long flight home.

If you do have a VPN to your home PC, you might be able to reduce one upload time.


----------



## likegadgets (Dec 29, 2005)

dennisj00 said:


> VPNs won't work for direct play/transcoding. But a quick Remote Desktop to start a transcode, later upload the PC files (.Mp4 and .kfe) for each episode desired to an FTP or Dropbox site, then down both to your remote pc while you're out for dinner, isn't very demanding considering the crappy TV viewing in most hotel / motels - or a long flight home.
> 
> If you do have a VPN to your home PC, you might be able to reduce one upload time.


This is similar (I use a remote connection MAC to MAC) to what I am doing with my TiVo to go files. The advantage of that is that I can then load them on the iPad from iTunes - from my Macbook. The transcoding for the series I want can be programmed to be done automatically to the NOMAD. So I will have to wait and see how the files transfer once the MAC client becomes available. And at minimum transfer from the Mac Desktop to the Macbook.

Like you say this happens when I am out for dinner or at night - so it does not matter. I upload to an FTP and then download at leisure.

I still think there must be a way to remotely log in into a home network from an iPad and make the NOMAD believe the Ipad is on the network.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

likegadgets said:


> I still think there must be a way to remotely log in into a home network from an iPad and make the NOMAD believe the Ipad is on the network.


Unless there's some magic with iCloud that wasn't available a few weeks ago, nothing has worked.

I can remotely move videos via FTP and back to Goodreader, but of course, the nomad files won't play.


----------



## Rtm (Oct 18, 2011)

Utter ridiculous when even apple allows you to touch their drmed tv show episodes. Nomad needs some kind of import/export file though there is no file system access on iOS certain apps allow .wmv to give a dialog in safari to the option of opening in these media player apps that allow .wmvs to play.

nomad should allow upload to server then enter the URL into safari on iOS device of the heavily drmed file and the option to open in nomad App. A more elegant solution would be for directv to allow you to set the ip of nomad and place it outside your firewall or something similar like the directv receivers ip addresses are I'm the iPad app.

Hell directv needs to integrate into iCloud with nomad 5gb storage is plenty for shows on the go or they need to set up their own cloud type server.


----------



## techm8n (Jan 3, 2008)

The iPad has a built in VPN client. If you have an iPad compatible VPN solution at home, then yes you can download Nomad transcoded videos to your iPad remotely. With VPN, your iPad will virtually be on the same network.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> VPNs won't work for direct play/transcoding. But a quick Remote Desktop to start a transcode, later upload the PC files (.Mp4 and .kfe) for each episode desired to an FTP or Dropbox site, then down both to your remote pc while you're out for dinner, isn't very demanding considering the crappy TV viewing in most hotel / motels - or a long flight home.
> 
> If you do have a VPN to your home PC, you might be able to reduce one upload time.


Why do you keep referring to starting a transcode? Just have stuff be auto-transcoded... Series lists/season passes can do that already. You would then merely need to upload/download to get access to the files, assuming that actually works.

Still feels like 40 mins each way per hour of TV (assuming about 2 megabits/sec real-world throughput), but that's very manageable if you remember to start before heading out somewhere.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

markrogo said:


> Why do you keep referring to starting a transcode? Just have stuff be auto-transcoded... Series lists/season passes can do that already. You would then merely need to upload/download to get access to the files, assuming that actually works.


It's just the way I've been using nomad. With 5 dvrs and only 32GB on my nomad, I'm fairly selective about what I want on the mobile devices. Concerts, movies, documentaries are more my choices than weekly series.

So it's more of a one-off, select an episode to download, come back later and transfer it to the iPad or iPhone. And I'm usually using the iPad for something else while nomad does it's work.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I noticed that Nomad used UPnP to open up port 8082 on my Actiontec router. Assuming the client knew my home IP address, I suppose it's technically possible it could communicate directly with the Nomad device and copy over a transcoded file. The Nomad registration server could act as the "broker" between the client and the Nomad device's current IP address.

Whether or not something like that is planned is another story.


----------



## Mike_TV (Jan 17, 2006)

One would think that Directv would add two changes to their GUIs when you set up a recording

1) On Directv.com when you set up a recording remotely, include a "prepare on Nomad" option

2) On the DVR, via Series Manager, when you set up a recording at home, include a "prepare on Nomad" option


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

What looks like a simple change / addition on the surface, gets complicated pretty quick. I doubt the population of nomad would justify the expense / time of programming and testing on the dvr families.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

As stated before, VPN connections don't work for nomad as a general rule. As for other options, including DVR integration... let's say the door is open, but I can't see what's in the next room.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Assuming you have the Nomad softare on your home PC, couldn't you use something like GoToMyPC to log on to your home PC, transcode a show to it and then watch it? All while being out of town?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You could watch it that way if you've got a fast enough connection, I would imagine.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> Assuming you have the Nomad softare on your home PC, couldn't you use something like GoToMyPC to log on to your home PC, transcode a show to it and then watch it? All while being out of town?


You could use DirecTV2PC to do that, too. But either way, you need a pretty fast connection between your house and your remote location.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

litzdog911 said:


> You could use DirecTV2PC to do that, too. But either way, you need a pretty fast connection between your house and your remote location.


DirecTV2PC won't play with Remote Desktop on the local LAN- you get the screen capture error.

I doubt it will work with any remote control software enabled, no matter what the connection speed.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> As stated before, VPN connections don't work for nomad as a general rule. As for other options, including DVR integration... let's say the door is open, but I can't see what's in the next room.


I find it implausible DirecTV has implemented code to block me from VPNing into my own network and copying my content to my computer. I know you keep saying it doesn't work so this must be true. I'm still unwilling to spend $150 to find out, but I guess when it's time to negotiate over the HR34, I may have to get a Nomad thrown in and see for myself.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

markrogo said:


> I find it implausible DirecTV has implemented code to block me from VPNing into my own network and copying my content to my computer. I know you keep saying it doesn't work so this must be true. I'm still unwilling to spend $150 to find out, but I guess when it's time to negotiate over the HR34, I may have to get a Nomad thrown in and see for myself.


You should be able to VPN into your PC client and copy those files to a PC client via VPN, but using Nomad via the IOS client hasn't worked since the VPN involves another layer of routing and the wireless connection.

It's not DirecTV, it's the DRM issue.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> You should be able to VPN into your PC client and copy those files to a PC client via VPN, but using Nomad via the IOS client hasn't worked since the VPN involves another layer of routing and the wireless connection.
> 
> It's not DirecTV, it's the DRM issue.


I can certainly understand the DRM issue. I'm still unclear how if I'm VPNed into my network on any device of mine, Nomad decides I'm not really on my network.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

The easy answer is the wireless connection IP is a different subnet than the vpn host.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> The easy answer is the wireless connection IP is a different subnet than the vpn host.


If you're using some mobile VPN on a cell phone/3G hotspot-type network, perhaps. One of the main purposes of a VPN is to assign an IP address internal to the network you are "VPNing into". This is exactly how, for example, people using international VPNs to bypass restrictions on streaming Netflix or Sunday Ticket or whatever into countries where it shouldn't be streamed. They connect to VPNs in the "correct" country, get an address, and the server "sees" them as being in said country.

The notion that if I have a VPN router, connect to it, get an IP that looks to be part of my internal network, and then can't use Nomad is weird. The reason why that is true -- and I'm assuming based on everything written here that it's true -- is that it simply refuses to connect over that network on certain devices since those "closed devices" tend not to be the most flexible when it comes to making network connections. It can't really be that Nomad is secure against VPNing but rather the Nomad client simply refuses, for example, to connect over a network interface that has a VPN connection overlaying it. Again, this is weird, but that may be as much iPad/iPhone/Android-phone weirdness as it is Nomad weirdness.

I'll stop speculating here because I won't be owning a Nomad until I can talk DirecTV into giving me one with my HR34.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

markrogo said:


> I'm still unclear how if I'm VPNed into my network on any device of mine, Nomad decides I'm not really on my network.


Even if VPN'd in with an address on the same LAN as the Nomad device, could simply be a matter of ping time. If there's too much latency, the device my refuse to connect to the client for performance reasons. Don't know for sure this is the case, but it's one explanation that may fit the facts.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

A VPN connection is not indistinguishable from a local connection, particularly from the remote end.

For example, imagine a PC or other device on a hotel wireless network which then opens a VPN connection to a remote network. That remote node now has 2 IP addresses - a "local" address and a "remote" address. Moreover, a simple query of the remote node's IP layer will return both addresses, each assigned to a different "adapter" and the VPN connection will be flagged as a "software" adapter. In that case, the Nomad client simply refuses to use the VPN IP for communication and returns a "No Nomad found" error.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

There's also quite a bit of difference in the latency of a VPN connection vs. a local one.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Actually, just thought of the simplest way to distinguish a local node from a remote node - compare default gateway addresses. If the numbers don't match, the nodes are on different networks, regardless of how they are connected to each other.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

As an illustration of Stuart's point, and a way to show how easily IP addresses can be retrieved, here is the trace route results from polling my workstation, and then a server on my company's network, over a VPN connection. Note that I qualified both requests by corporate address (xxx.kalido.local). My node returned the IP address assigned by my router locally, while the remote server returned the IP address assigned by the corporate DHCP server.


```
C:\Users\diana.collins>tracert -4 us-l-01002.kalido.local

Tracing route to us-l-01002.kalido.local [192.168.1.119]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  us-l-01002.kalido.local [192.168.1.119]

Trace complete.

C:\Users\diana.collins>tracert -4 us-v-vmfs1.kalido.local

Tracing route to us-v-vmfs1.kalido.local [10.34.1.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    18 ms    17 ms    18 ms  us-v-vmfs1.kalido.local [10.34.1.22]

Trace complete.
```
It is easy to see that 10.34.1.22 and 192.168.1.119 are NOT on the same network, and therefore any 1 hop connection between them HAS to be via VPN.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Was VOS's post deleted? I don't see anything from him in this thread.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Was VOS's post deleted? I don't see anything from him in this thread.


No, I had too many browser windows open and got confused about who's point I was supporting. It was Stuart's comment about latency.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

This business about address querying would seemingly make it trivial to stop someone from accessing American Netflix from Europe via a VPN or Sunday Ticket from abroad. Yet those things are done and the stakes are clearly much higher than "download something I already have on my Nomad". Even the latency testing method is questionable as some people have surprisingly high in-home latency for various reasons. As I said, I'm done debating this. It obviously doesn't work. That said, I find it nearly impossible to believe there is any code anywhere in the value chain that is designed to prevent it from working. That strains the imagination.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I am not saying that this is how Directv is preventing remote access, I am just pointing out that doing so is trivial when you can control both the player and the server.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

BTW, you can't have a Netflix account without a US credit card, so I don't see how the stakes are higher...with Netflix you are streaming content you are already entitled to.

Also, VPNs are designed to make the REMOTE node look local to the server, not make the server look local to the remote node.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Titan25 said:


> BTW, you can't have a Netflix account without a US credit card, so I don't see how the stakes are higher...with Netflix you are streaming content you are already entitled to.
> 
> Also, VPNs are designed to make the REMOTE node look local to the server, not make the server look local to the remote node.


The stakes are higher for Netflix because 100% of their licensing agreements are for U.S.-to-U.S. streaming or for specific countries. Similarly, the sports packages on DirecTV are licensed to stream into the U.S. other. When people circumvent those requirements, they are helping the provider -- without the provider's knowledge -- circumvent the license requirements. The sports leagues go through all sorts of ridiculous hoops to license content on a per-country basis as do things like music (consider all the people in the U.S. using Spotify before it was offered here via a U.K. VPN). Clearly a lot of people care, whether or not they should.

If you could copy a recording from your own Nomad to your own portable without passing through your own physical residence, you would not be violating any license agreement. You would be making a product/service you already paid for/pay for marginally more useful in obviating the need to return home every time you wanted to watch something new.

I'm not sure what your last point means. The iPad is the remote node. So the VPN would make it look local to the "server", which in this case is the Nomad. That's entirely the point of why one would even try a VPN.

I should note as an aside that in addition to not having a Nomad to test this out, the whole thing seems ridiculously academic. There's a 95+% chance that whatever you have recorded on your DVR is available as a torrent. Leaving aside the specific legal issues here, since you recorded the thing anyway, your moral issue of downloading said torrent would seemingly not really exist here. I believe there are torrent clients for all the major mobile platforms at this point although I admit I'm unsure about the state of playback on iOS.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

All true...and in every case, the actual licensees, whether it be Netflix, Directv or Spotify were conforming to their agreements. It was the actions of a 3rd party (the VPN services) that circumvented the precautions taken.

Remember that services like Netflix are designed to SPECIFICALLY stream content across the Internet. Whether that stream is passing over a VPN or not is much harder to determine unless there is code at the recieving end that does the work. Since the Nomad is specifically sold and the content it manipulates is specifically licensed for transfer over a home network, it is far simpler to control. I strongly suspect that if a router were installed between the Nomad and the PC or iPad client, such that they were each on different subnets, the client would fail to "see" the Nomad.

The point of my last sentence is that the first thing the Nomad client does (ie. the remote node if working across a VPN) is look for a Nomad to connect to. Since, as I have shown above, the remote node gets the local ip address as the default address when querying the ip stack any attempt to make a connection to a local Nomad will fail. All that is required is that the broadcast on the Nomad's port use a netmask of 255.255.255.0. End of story...no special checks required. Sure, from the Nomad's end it may appear that the client node is local, but it never gets that far. The Nomad never even knows there IS a route to the client since a session never gets initiated.

The Netflix/Sunday Ticket/Spotify situation is different. They are *designed* to work across multiple subnets, so they don't limit their sessions to the local netmask.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Titan25 said:


> It is easy to see that 10.34.1.22 and 192.168.1.119 are NOT on the same network, and therefore any 1 hop connection between them HAS to be via VPN.


It is easy to see if you know what subnet to look for. If you route all external IP traffic through the VPN, that's what traces will show.

You can use the Windows ROUTE command to do this or there is a box you can check when you set up the VPN that will route all off-LAN addresses through the VPN host's gateway. In older versions of Windows, "use remote gateway" was the default.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Titan25 said:


> All true...and in every case, the actual licensees, whether it be Netflix, Directv or Spotify were conforming to their agreements. It was the actions of a 3rd party (the VPN services) that circumvented the precautions taken.
> 
> STUFF


Anyway, it's all moot as I said. Torrent files are typically about 400MB per hour, download very quickly thanks to multiple hosts, etc. I can't even imagine trying to bother with this as a concept given the availability of those and my Slingbox. Given I'd never download something I hadn't already DVRed under either scenario, I'm not having much of a moral dilemma. I do confess I tried Spotify when it was not open to U.S. residents (didn't care for it then or now, used the free version).

Moving on to other topics.

(File size corrected per post below to 400MB from 400GB)


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> It is easy to see if you know what subnet to look for. If you route all external IP traffic through the VPN, that's what traces will show.
> 
> You can use the Windows ROUTE command to do this or there is a box you can check when you set up the VPN that will route all *off-LAN* addresses through the VPN host's gateway. In older versions of Windows, "use remote gateway" was the default.


Exactly the point...the Nomad client software is not LOOKING for an off-LAN address, it is ONLY looking at local addresses.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Titan25 said:


> Exactly the point...the Nomad client software is not LOOKING for an off-LAN address, it is ONLY looking at local addresses.


Because the nomad client software is homed on the same subnet, it won't look to the VPN.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

markrogo said:


> Anyway, it's all moot as I said. Torrent files are typically about 400GB per hour, download very quickly thanks to multiple hosts, etc.


It seems like you're off by a couple orders of magnitude on your file size estimates. 400GB is also well over most bandwidth caps.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> Because the nomad client software is homed on the same subnet, it won't look to the VPN.


Yes, we are in violent agreement. 

The only possible way to get a Nomad to work over a VPN would be to have the VPN server at the remote location and open a session FROM the Nomad's network to the remote location - not too practical.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

harsh said:


> It seems like you're off by a couple orders of magnitude on your file size estimates. 400GB is also well over most bandwidth caps.


I meant 400MB (vs. about 680MB per hour for Nomad). Based on the quality complaints about Nomad files on iPads and the few torrents we have run on our HDTV in the living room; I'd guess the average torrent looks more than a bit better as well.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

markrogo said:


> I meant 400MB (vs. about 680MB per hour for Nomad). Based on the quality complaints about Nomad files on iPads and the few torrents we have run on our HDTV in the living room; I'd guess the average torrent looks more than a bit better as well.


Where have you seen complaints about the videos on iPads from Nomad? I think they look great. The only complaints I have heard have been from people using laptop or desktop computers with much bigger screens.

Sure Torrents are going to look better in some cases, but they are going to be much larger files, and you have to deal with going out and finding them, downloading them, and hoping you don't end up with Viruses etc. Not to mention it is technically illegal.

Finally, once again torrents, like streaming, require a good high speed internet connection. That is not something everybody has. I can't be downloading a bunch of movies from torrents on my HughesNet satellite internet, but it works just fine for letting me set up and access Nomad. I'm also really annoyed by all these movie companies starting to make you download the digital copies you get with your Blu-Ray instead of just including them on a disc. I end up having to set my alarm for 1am and 6am to start and stop downloading them overnight in the free download zone, and it takes 2 or 3 nights per movie a lot of the time. It really sucks.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Beerstalker said:


> Where have you seen complaints about the videos on iPads from Nomad? I think they look great. The only complaints I have heard have been from people using laptop or desktop computers with much bigger screens.


Here, on DBSTalk. Specifically asking if the native iPad client would have higher resolution/bitrate because the files don't look very good. Feel free to run the search if you don't believe me, the posts are here.


> Sure Torrents are going to look better in some cases, but they are going to be much larger files, and you have to deal with going out and finding them, downloading them, and hoping you don't end up with Viruses etc. Not to mention it is technically illegal.


So just to clarify:

1) They are smaller files, not larger files. Torrent files are typically 400MB per hour is smaller than Nomad files which are -- according to reports here -- 680MB here.

2) They take about 20 seconds to locate in Google and begin downloading. Aside from the fact that directly VPNing doesn't even work, all the workaround solutions involve transferring a Nomad file to another computer in your home and _then_ copying that out. There is no way you are going to get that started in less time than someone is going to start a torrent download.

3) I only torrent under the following circumstances: I have set a recording on my DVR and for whatever reason, it's not accessible. That could be file corruption, DVR failure, DirecTV's highly contentious relationship between our local CW affiliate and the current generation of DVRs, whanot. Otherwise, I simply don't do it. That said, with standard virus protection running, I've never seen a video file with a virus. Could it happen? Sure. Has it happened? Not to me.

4) Yes, it's technically illegal. Circumventing the restrictions on downloading content from Nomad to your device outside your home is probably also technically illegal under DMCA. I'm not a lawyer and not playing one on TV.

The discussion here was about "adding something from Nomad when away from home". And I'm merely noting that since that doesn't appear to work in any way that's not very convoluted -- you need to log into your home network, cause the transfer to occur, get the file to your remote device, and then, apparently, it will work -- there is an alternative. Given that you have bothered to record the program in either case, the gray area here is awfully murky. I would never tell anyone to download a recently released film from the internet. To me, that's clearly wrong. To download a copy of a show you have already DVRed on the other hand? Well, I'm struggling with wagging the copyright law finger at you.


> Finally, once again torrents, like streaming, require a good high speed internet connection. That is not something everybody has. I can't be downloading a bunch of movies from torrents on my HughesNet satellite internet, but it works just fine for letting me set up and access Nomad.


This is perhaps true of satellite connections, but that doesn't really apply to any real situation involving "away from home" short of a cabin in the woods or a boat or equivalent. Otherwise, who uses HughesNet. Any other connection that lets you download files that are Nomad transcoded can easily handle torrents, which often download far faster thanks to source-server diversity. Since the torrent files are barely more than half the size, a challenged connection will find them that much more appealing. It is true that satellite internet is unique on the upstream side and torrent downloads do benefit a bit by having access to some upstream bandwidth, but, again, we are talking downloads away from home. I'm really not sure how this applies for 99% of people.



> I'm also really annoyed by all these movie companies starting to make you download the digital copies you get with your Blu-Ray instead of just including them on a disc. I end up having to set my alarm for 1am and 6am to start and stop downloading them overnight in the free download zone, and it takes 2 or 3 nights per movie a lot of the time. It really sucks.


Yes, it's idiotic. So is UltraViolet, a great idea, except they got no buy in from Amazon or Apple -- the largest sources of paid movie downloads. Hollywood is trying, but still doesn't quite get it. The downloadable digital copies you are suffering with are a perfect example. At that point, you are honestly better off with a DRM-free illegal copy. And, honestly, too often people I know justify illegal copying because it works better than the legal solutions. I'm not one of those people, but I understand where they are coming from.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

markrogo said:


> Here, on DBSTalk. Specifically asking if the native iPad client would have higher resolution/bitrate because the files don't look very good. Feel free to run the search if you don't believe me, the posts are here.


The only posts I have seen here like that are about the UI itself. Since there is no iPad app currently you have to run the iPhone app on it scaled up and it doesn't look good. However, once you start playing a file it switches over the the iPads video player app and the actual video file looks very good. I haven't seen any complaints about the video files looking bad on iPads, only computers. I'm pretty sure digital copies that come with Blu-rays/DVDs are also only 720x480 and they look about the same, maybe a little better because they usually take up about 800-900 MB/hour.



markrogo said:


> So just to clarify:
> 
> 1) They are smaller files, not larger files. Torrent files are typically 400MB per hour is smaller than Nomad files which are -- according to reports here -- 680MB here.


How is a torrent file with higher resolution going to be a smaller file. I don't buy that at all.



markrogo said:


> 2) They take about 20 seconds to locate in Google and begin downloading. Aside from the fact that directly VPNing doesn't even work, all the workaround solutions involve transferring a Nomad file to another computer in your home and _then_ copying that out. There is no way you are going to get that started in less time than someone is going to start a torrent download.


The last time I messed with torrents you had to go to specifit sites, use BitTorrent or something like that to download a .zip or .rar file, and then by the time you got it downloaded and unzipped you found out it wasn't really the video you were looking for, or it was a virus. Maybe stuff is better in that respect now.



markrogo said:


> 4) Yes, it's technically illegal. Circumventing the restrictions on downloading content from Nomad to your device outside your home is probably also technically illegal under DMCA. I'm not a lawyer and not playing one on TV.
> 
> The discussion here was about "adding something from Nomad when away from home". And I'm merely noting that since that doesn't appear to work in any way that's not very convoluted -- you need to log into your home network, cause the transfer to occur, get the file to your remote device, and then, apparently, it will work -- there is an alternative. Given that you have bothered to record the program in either case, the gray area here is awfully murky. I would never tell anyone to download a recently released film from the internet. To me, that's clearly wrong. To download a copy of a show you have already DVRed on the other hand? Well, I'm struggling with wagging the copyright law finger at you.


I was just pointing out that normally they don't like people here suggesting others do something illegal or against DirecTV's terms of service. That's one reason I'm suprised this thread has stuck around, I figured trying this has to be close to both if not at least against DirecTV's TOS. I don't think there is going to be any way to transfer these shows outside your home.



markrogo said:


> This is perhaps true of satellite connections, but that doesn't really apply to any real situation involving "away from home" short of a cabin in the woods or a boat or equivalent. Otherwise, who uses HughesNet. Any other connection that lets you download files that are Nomad transcoded can easily handle torrents, which often download far faster thanks to source-server diversity. Since the torrent files are barely more than half the size, a challenged connection will find them that much more appealing. It is true that satellite internet is unique on the upstream side and torrent downloads do benefit a bit by having access to some upstream bandwidth, but, again, we are talking downloads away from home. I'm really not sure how this applies for 99% of people.


Really? Away from home is where most people are going to lack high speed internet. WiFi isn't free everywhere and not everyone has 3G enabled devices, or 3G service available. And yes a lot of people use HughesNet including myself because it is the only high speed internet availabe. Not everyone lives in town or close to town.



markrogo said:


> Yes, it's idiotic. So is UltraViolet, a great idea, except they got no buy in from Amazon or Apple -- the largest sources of paid movie downloads. Hollywood is trying, but still doesn't quite get it. The downloadable digital copies you are suffering with are a perfect example. At that point, you are honestly better off with a DRM-free illegal copy. And, honestly, too often people I know justify illegal copying because it works better than the legal solutions. I'm not one of those people, but I understand where they are coming from.


Don't get me started on UltraViolet. I still haven't figured out how to get them on my computer and into my iPhone/iPad. Do they integrate into itunes after you have them downloaded or does it have to use the stupid Ultraviolet program on my computer to transfer it somehow? I may very well end up giving up on those movies, I don't want to have to deal with looking for my movies in different apps/etc. I'm already dealing with that because these channel providers have all deciced they want to have their own apps for each of their channels streaming sites (I have to have seperate apps for HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TNT, etc. right now and that's annoying).


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Beerstalker said:


> The only posts I have seen here like that are about the UI itself. Since there is no iPad app currently you have to run the iPhone app on it scaled up and it doesn't look good. However, once you start playing a file it switches over the the iPads video player app and the actual video file looks very good. I haven't seen any complaints about the video files looking bad on iPads, only computers.


There are, in fact, complaints about the video quality.

Here's a left-handed compliment: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2880439#post2880439

This post specifically notes the small screens mask the bad quality: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2876011#post2876011

These are not the only posts, but really feel free to run your own searches. I've read all the threads, there are complaints about the quality.



> I'm pretty sure digital copies that come with Blu-rays/DVDs are also only 720x480 and they look about the same, maybe a little better because they usually take up about 800-900 MB/hour.


Resolution is one small part of video quality. Bitrate is a larger past. Encoding is a critical part -- see below.


> How is a torrent file with higher resolution going to be a smaller file. I don't buy that at all.


Encoding quality. Period. I'm sorry you don't buy it. It's fact. You can have a 4 megabit/second file that looks better than a 10 megabit/second file if the encoding is appreciably better. Nomad has presumably a dedicated hardware encoder (perhaps as part of an SoC) that is probably running a single pass with relatively "light" software setting as befits a $150 device. If I have a modern PC with a modern graphics card and my goal is to make a great 400MB/hour file from a broadcast HDTV source at 19 megabits/second (which is available for most OTA TV), I can easily obliterate the quality of Nomad using approximately half the bits.

I don't know if you ever play with BluRay rips or not, but you should try using some encoders to make 4 megabit/second rips sometime and compare those to DirecTV broadcasts. The bitrates and resolution are comparable; the visuals are not. I no longer debate facts with people. Encoding quality matters. If you need help finding sources, I'll help you run searches. If you wish to debate whether it's true, I won't be partaking.


> The last time I messed with torrents you had to go to specifit sites, use BitTorrent or something like that to download a .zip or .rar file, and then by the time you got it downloaded and unzipped you found out it wasn't really the video you were looking for, or it was a virus. Maybe stuff is better in that respect now.


The way it works now:

1) Find season/episode number, e.g. you just missed an episode of Family Guy (I use epguides.com to find this info for the episode number corresponding to what I'd need.)

2) Type Family Guy S10e02 into Google. (or whatever show name and episode code where it's season number, followed by episode number). One of the first 2 links contains a tracker. Click on that to "download" tracker. Takes 5 seconds. Open tracker, it adds to torrent client.

3) Wait 20-30 minutes typically, open file with VLC or equivalent. There are no viruses, no bogus files, etc. Google really takes care of that by having only the most popular links atop the search results.

Again, I'm not advocating this, but I believe most anyone can manage this (if I can, you can). 


> I was just pointing out that normally they don't like people here suggesting others do something illegal or against DirecTV's terms of service. That's one reason I'm suprised this thread has stuck around, I figured trying this has to be close to both if not at least against DirecTV's TOS. I don't think there is going to be any way to transfer these shows outside your home.


Nor do I. But perhaps streaming will be allowed at some point, a la Slingbox.


> Really? Away from home is where most people are going to lack high speed internet. WiFi isn't free everywhere and not everyone has 3G enabled devices, or 3G service available. And yes a lot of people use HughesNet including myself because it is the only high speed internet availabe. Not everyone lives in town or close to town.


See this is where your point which valid is not relevant. If you don't have high speed, you aren't adding something from Nomad. You can't have this argument both ways: Either this is no/limited connectivity, in which case you can't add from Nomad regardless of legal/technical limitations. Or there is decent connectivity, in which case, the quasi-legal/morally questionable torrent method is 100% as viable as the Nomad method. Actually, it's close to 200% as viable since the files would take less time to load. Perhaps it's 1000% more viable in that you can do it, whereas the Nomad simply doesn't allow this. The one "known" workaround is very complex.



> Don't get me started on UltraViolet. I still haven't figured out how to get them on my computer and into my iPhone/iPad. Do they integrate into itunes after you have them downloaded or does it have to use the stupid Ultraviolet program on my computer to transfer it somehow?


I'm pretty sure it's a world unto itself. Dumb and dumber. I buy my movies on BluRay. If I want them on other devices, I rip them to hard drive. The movie industry doesn't care for this, but refuses to provide a solution that is as good or reliable. Hint: DRM needs to be invisible or non-existent; once it starts breaking stuff, we're out.



> I may very well end up giving up on those movies, I don't want to have to deal with looking for my movies in different apps/etc. I'm already dealing with that because these channel providers have all deciced they want to have their own apps for each of their channels streaming sites (I have to have seperate apps for HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TNT, etc. right now and that's annoying).


Yes, welcome to the "future" where we have dozens of separate apps with unique UIs to watch TV. How is this good exactly? Oh. right, it isn't. At least HBO Go is well done. I've heard decent things about ESPN's app, but we can't use it on DirecTV. Oh well.


----------



## jfulcher (Jun 5, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> As stated before, VPN connections don't work for nomad as a general rule. As for other options, including DVR integration... let's say the door is open, but I can't see what's in the next room.


Why doesn't it work? How does Nomad know you aren't physically on the same network?

Nevermind, I read more.


----------

