Streaming TV advice

As it should be.  I'm stocked it took them this long to make the play towards an internet based service.  Satellite is all but dead, the only reason to have it currently is for perks like NFL Sunday ticket and better Guide/DVR functionality.

 
Redux said:
As it should be.  I'm stocked it took them this long to make the play towards an internet based service.  Satellite is all but dead, the only reason to have it currently is for perks like NFL Sunday ticket and better Guide/DVR functionality.
Click to expand...
I really wish the NFL would start an nfl.tv as MLB did.

 
MLB 51 said:
I really wish the NFL would start an nfl.tv as MLB did.
Click to expand...


That would be pretty cool.  Although a much higher percentage of NFL games are nationally televised compared to baseball so that would affect subscribers.

But even though I'm not a huge baseball fan I bought the Mets season subscription on MLB.tv and have been pretty impressed.  With the service.  Not necessarily the Mets.

 
Redux said:
As it should be.  I'm stocked it took them this long to make the play towards an internet based service.  Satellite is all but dead, the only reason to have it currently is for perks like NFL Sunday ticket and better Guide/DVR functionality.
Click to expand...


Problem is going to be ISPs holding bandwidth and access for ransom (See Netflix, Hulu) if it really does take off. Really need a net neutrality agreement so TV over IP can really take off and internet service can be regulated as a utility (which it's quickly becoming, if not already). 

 
Mavric said:
That would be pretty cool.  Although a much higher percentage of NFL games are nationally televised compared to baseball so that would affect subscribers.

But even though I'm not a huge baseball fan I bought the Mets season subscription on MLB.tv and have been pretty impressed.  With the service.  Not necessarily the Mets.
Click to expand...
I bought it for the Yankee games and renew every year for the past 6 years.

I think the NFL could probably make more money off of it than do with Sunday Ticket. I would subscribe just for the Raider games. :)

 
I actually love MLB.TV as well. It's awesome that they allow you to switch audio sources because we like to watch the Mets game with the radio guys doing the calls.

It's usually good for a litany of annoying technical problems per year but other than that the service itself is amazing.

 
VectorVictor said:
Problem is going to be ISPs holding bandwidth and access for ransom (See Netflix, Hulu) if it really does take off. Really need a net neutrality agreement so TV over IP can really take off and internet service can be regulated as a utility (which it's quickly becoming, if not already). 
Click to expand...
Actually  'net neutrality' is enforced today but it is done  in retro-active way.    When the net came about they classified it as a type 1 service (data service).    As such it falls under the umbrella of the FTC (federal Trade Commission)  The federal trade commission is not a regulatory agency.  Their mandate is light regulations, consumer protection, open platform with fair business  practices.   This encourages an open platform and growth.  Problem is they are a watchdog organization with reactive enforcement which  means they cant do anything until there is a victim/abuse of fair practice. When the FTC started seeing what you are describing on a reoccurring basis, they put out a set of guidelines that  became the net neutrality rules.  They then tried to enforce those proactively and got sued for it.   Courts said your mandate is light regulations you can only enforce 1 of the rules.  SO that's what they did.  Basically back to doing business the old  way.   Obama administration didn't like that and got the  internet reclassified as a type  2 service which is telecommunications.   This falls under the  FCC  (federal communications commission).   This  is a heavily  regulated platform.   FCC is a regulatory body that is more proactive.   They can proactively enforce the net rules.   The problem with this is  the cost of doing business goes up because of all the regulations that exist.    Internet businesses became heavily regulated as they inherited other regulations besides the net rules.    Growth declined because it was harder to do business in this  type of environment.  I know my rates went up.   The other thing  that started  was a lobbyist industry for the  internet as that's what happens in a gov't regulated industry.  Then along came Trump who is pro business.  The administration appointed a new board and they  reversed  the classification back to a type 1 service and business went back  to  the  way it  was  for 20+ years.  Things are moving again.

Either way you do it there are  pros and cons.    The best solution is to make it it's own classification and an new oversight  agency.   Problem is they are fighting over the details  as there is a lot of money/control/power involved.

 
flatwaterfan said:
Actually  'net neutrality' is enforced today but it is done  in retro-active way.    When the net came about they classified it as a type 1 service (data service).    As such it falls under the umbrella of the FTC (federal Trade Commission)  The federal trade commission is not a regulatory agency.  Their mandate is light regulations, consumer protection, open platform with fair business  practices.   This encourages an open platform and growth.  Problem is they are a watchdog organization with reactive enforcement which  means they cant do anything until there is a victim/abuse of fair practice. When the FTC started seeing what you are describing on a reoccurring basis, they put out a set of guidelines that  became the net neutrality rules.  They then tried to enforce those proactively and got sued for it.   Courts said your mandate is light regulations you can only enforce 1 of the rules.  SO that's what they did.  Basically back to doing business the old  way.   Obama administration didn't like that and got the  internet reclassified as a type  2 service which is telecommunications.   This falls under the  FCC  (federal communications commission).   This  is a heavily  regulated platform.   FCC is a regulatory body that is more proactive.   They can proactively enforce the net rules.   The problem with this is  the cost of doing business goes up because of all the regulations that exist.    Internet businesses became heavily regulated as they inherited other regulations besides the net rules.    Growth declined because it was harder to do business in this  type of environment.  I know my rates went up.   The other thing  that started  was a lobbyist industry for the  internet as that's what happens in a gov't regulated industry.  Then along came Trump who is pro business.  The administration appointed a new board and they  reversed  the classification back to a type 1 service and business went back  to  the  way it  was  for 20+ years.  Things are moving again.

Either way you do it there are  pros and cons.    The best solution is to make it it's own classification and an new oversight  agency.   Problem is they are fighting over the details  as there is a lot of money/control/power involved.
Click to expand...




This has already been covered ad nauseaum in the Net Neutrality thread in the Politics board, so I'll leave it there for discussion, other than to say the bolded is factually incorrect on multiple fronts (that have already been covered in the thread). 

 
Redux said:
If DirecTV would be willing to actually work with customers, especially loyal ones, and eliminate contracts they wouldn't be losing so many people.
Click to expand...


I'll try to find the article, but at the most recent shareholder meeting, AT&T confirmed their strategy is to get rid of the customers paying for service with deals and to only keep the customers staying on without the benefit of bundle deals. Also, they're going to scuttle their lowest-priced plans, as they don't want to chase those customers as well. 

Long story short, even if DirecTV goes TV-over-IP route, it likely won't be a cheaper option, and the incentives will be light to non-existent. 

 
VectorVictor said:
This has already been covered ad nauseaum in the Net Neutrality thread in the Politics board, so I'll leave it there for discussion, other than to say the bolded is factually incorrect on multiple fronts (that have already been covered in the thread). 

 
Click to expand...
I don't go to the politics board as the only piece of advice my Dad gave me was not to argue religion or politics.   I don't want to argue with you and I don't want to take the time to  post the article that I was regurgitating. 

 I will say thank you for the previous post on May 10 about streaming and I understand your angst with some of these large corporations.  

I am a cord cutter because of  DirectTV and their unethical behavior (in my opinion)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Toe said:
@schriznoeder  @Redux @Enhance etc: I mentioned this was coming a few months ago, and now they're starting to roll it out. Prime Video is on Chromecast, and YouTube is on Fire TV. Or at least some Fire TVs - I've got a first-gen Fire TV, but they haven't released the updated YouTube app for that yet. Sounds like there's a few others that are still 'coming soon'.

https://blog.google/products/chromecast/prime-video-chromecast-android-tv-youtube-fire-tv/
Click to expand...
Oh that's awesome! There aren't a lot of Prime shows I'm watching right now but it'll be great when The Wheel of Time series comes out.

 
So we finally cut the cord.  Went with Hulu + Live TV.  It's been about a month and we don't miss all of the channels we never watch on Cox cable.  Hulu pretty much has all of the channels we want.  I did go with an upgraded modem and then added a Meshforce whole home wifi system with 3 pods.  So far we have had no issues with connectivity, only issue has been our inexpensive Vizio smartcast tv needs to be power cycled about every 3 days.  I think that is more a tv issue than network issue.

My question for the gurus out there is, I currently have all 3 of my smart TV's connected via wifi, one of my wireless pods is right by the living room tv, if I connect via ethernet to this pod instead of wifi, will I improve my picture  and streaming capabilities?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@ttkpga If you're getting some sort of interference on your wifi, or if you're streaming video to all of the TVs in your house at the same time, maybe. I would say probably not, though. Remember that your wifi is just one link in the signal chain. Data sent across the internet will typically go through ten or more different systems (routers/switches/etc) before if gets to its final destination, and any one of them could theoretically be the weakest link.

 
Back
Top