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.
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.
On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:46:12 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:
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,
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 21:16:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
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.
On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 01:06:21 -0500, email@example.com wrote:
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.
On 12/8/2017 1:06 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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.
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
I seldom use On Demand so I don't have to watch commercials.
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.
On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 1:06:53 AM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
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
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
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.
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 7 Dec 2017 21:16:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
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
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
Funny you mention this, just now - just last evening,
I tried to use my smart TV to watch a live-stream event
on FaceBook <didn't work because it needed a browser update>
but more important - the "Log Out" of FaceBook selection was
missing ! I must have spent 10 minutes trying to log out -
nope ... impossible. I'm not much of a FB user, nor use the
smart TV all-that-much .. but if I was - I'd be worried about
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.
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.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.