Remember when TV used advertising for their profit?
You would think some stations would want to be wifi ready and get the signal from your router. If they ever built TVs to take a wifi signal you would think ad companies would be more than willing to reach consumer's eyes that way.
No idea what your point is, but smart TVs that have Wi-Fi and support streaming have been out for several years and last time I looked, most of the market seems to include that now.
I know you can get Youtube with a smart TV but you would think that all cable channels would want their signal to go to TVs for free and get their advertising to more eyes.
Local channels should broadcast the same way Youtube does.
I don't have a smart TV but I do have several WDTV players. Using Youtube and the other channels are clumsy and most are not free.
reaming have been out for several years and last time I looked, most of the market seems to include that now.
I guess the cable content providers figure that they get the same or more m oney by getting a combo of payment from the cable companies and advertisers . And there is a lot of America where the cable bandwidth is there, but th e internet bandwidth could probably not support all those cable customers s treaming whatever they please.
I guess that would be a good option for people who can't get OTA reception, but IDK what the real demand would be and OTA seems to be working for peop le who don't want cable.
Somebody has to pay for the content. And right now that's through your cabl e bill and ads. Or using your model, through streaming and paying Netflix, Amazon etc.
There are plenty of people who would prefer to pay the content provider directly and avoid the ads altogether. I think that with the use of DVRs you could reduce the load on the infrastructure by ordering your shows delivered to your DVR, off peak, at a reduced price and pay full price for things you want streamed in real time. The only real problem is getting the DRM issues resolved but the hardware is already there.
The only TV I really care to watch is BBC. I would gladly pay the BBC tax if I could get real BBC and not BBC America.
I have considered trying VPN but I am paralyzed by how many choices I have to choose from.
Discovered something strange on Comcast X1 DVR system. I DVR everything so I can watch without commercials. Power went out on night I was DVR'ing so I fired up my generator but found cable was also down. I could not watch DVR'ed show without cable. Power and cable came back after a few hours but shows that were to be DVR'ed in that period were there and completely view-able without the power interruption. This tells me that DVR does not store the show but just stores that you can view it. If you delete a show on the DVR you can recover it but it recovers from On Demand and you cannot fast forward through commercials. Lot of tricky stuff going on.
Funny you mention this, just now - just last evening, I tried to use my smart TV to watch a live-stream event on FaceBook
replying to Seymore4Head, Iggy wrote: More the point. Remember when you only bought Cable to avoid watching ads? Now (for the last 20-years), you pay to watch more ads than actual content. I don't pay, I do Over-The-Air and rarely watch TV anymore, it's just not worth the constant annoyance. 5-minutes OR MORE of ads for 5-minutes of show, ridiculous and a demand for boycotting.
We have DirecTv and DVR most everything too. It is stored on the DVR though. When I upgraded to 4K they swapped out the hardware and I lost some of the recorded stuff. I have 2 DVRs though so I can record 7 shows at a time. Ridiculous and I should get rid of one and save $3 a month.
I seldom use On Demand so I don't have to watch commercials.
So you've not shopped for a TV for the past 10 years. Most are internet ready and all can take a Chromecast.
I even remember when the internet was ad free.
e money by getting a combo of payment from the cable companies and advertis ers. And there is a lot of America where the cable bandwidth is there, but the internet bandwidth could probably not support all those cable customer s streaming whatever they please.
That would reduce it, but consider the numbers. The way it works now you have one stream going to all viewers. Let's say there are 10,000 viewers on a cable system's infrastructure. If you instead stream it to them individually, you've increased the network demand by a factor of 10 ,000. Time shifting could make some difference, but there aren't enough hours there to come within orders of magnitude. Plus probably half of them are going to want to watch it realtime and you'd have to have infrastructure to support all 10K watching it without problems, because few are going to DVR the Superbowl, Academy Awards, etc. IDK what the typical cable/internet infrastructure can support today, but if most people suddenly went to streaming only, I think we'd have some big trouble.
They better get ready for it because the kids coming up are going to want to stream everything. I have believed the network/cable company model was a dying thing anyway. My kids and grand kids do not have "TV" per se right now. (no cable/sat or even an antenna) They watch most of their stuff on You Tube. Once I started poking around, I was surprised about what was out there. It is far more than cat videos these days. Occasionally I get a screen that says the copyright holder has taken some content down but not nearly as often as I expected.
The reality is with a decent fiber backbone, the amount of data they can handle is huge and they are finding ways to pack more in there every year. I suppose they could use the cable/satellite or even the broadcast infrastructure to broadcast things you are recording once the current model starts losing favor. I see the advertisers taking the hit early on but I am sure they will find a way. With Google being right in the middle of the mix, I think we will see fewer ads but they will be much more closely targeted.
Most of the shows On Demand allow fast forward or have no commercials. I no longer save stuff as when I had a VCR. With Comcast cable with HBO and Starz plus Net Flix there is more to watch than I have time for. That time the cable was out and I had generator power I watched an old VCR.
I would think that by now you'd be competent in English grammar.
I'm OTA exclusively, and since they created subchannels, there have been several stations here in Baltimore showing reruns of 30-minute sitcoms, plus 60 minute westerns, like Bonanza. There is twice as much tv as I have time to watch.
But on my trip last month, I stayed in 10 motels and only 2 had something I wanted to watch. Even though they all had cable or something,and even though I thought ME TV, Antenna TV, and Nikolodean etc. were cheap or free to cable companies, they weren't being shown at any motel.
They all had movies but when it's time to sleep and I have no way to record the part I sleep through, I don't want to watch a movie
Two of them had WE tv which had 60 minute Law & Order reruns. 60 minutes is better than 120, but you have to be in the mood for a murder show.
It turns out WE stood for Women's Entertainment. Maybe they like murder.
I no longer have the patience for ads, so if something is on OTA that I want to watch, I record it and watch something else that was recorded earlier. Then I FF thorugh the commercials.
No, keep them. You never know when there will be 7 good shows on at the same time.
replying to micky, Iggy wrote: Me too, sometimes. If a movie I don't have comes on then I record those, edit out the commercials add them to my library. So much better than Cable and just the channels I want.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.