Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT- Alternative TV

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OT- Alternative TV

    Ive seen reference to "other" ways to watch TV, which you have more control over what you pay for. Such as: Sling, Prime, Hulu, Roku, Amazon Fire......

    So do all of these stream over your internet provider? I have a set amount of bandwidth usage per month of 10 gigs. If these are streamed over this, I won't go far.

    Is there any that provide their own signal? I use Dish now, but it hurts every month to pay for 90% of channels I don't watch, to get what I do watch. I wouldn't mind paying for a service to get what I want, so subsidies don't go to the other channels.

  • #2
    Originally posted by rws View Post
    So do all of these stream over your internet provider?
    Yes

    Originally posted by rws View Post
    Is there any that provide their own signal?
    The internet is sitting there ready to use, providing their own signal would cost millions in infrastructure rental, unless they spent billions on their own infrastructure!

    Investigate alternate ISPs, mine gives me unlimited data.
    If you benefit from the Dunning-Kruger Effect you may not even know it ;-)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rws View Post
      Ive seen reference to "other" ways to watch TV, which you have more control over what you pay for. Such as: Sling, Prime, Hulu, Roku, Amazon Fire......

      So do all of these stream over your internet provider? I have a set amount of bandwidth usage per month of 10 gigs. If these are streamed over this, I won't go far.

      Is there any that provide their own signal? I use Dish now, but it hurts every month to pay for 90% of channels I don't watch, to get what I do watch. I wouldn't mind paying for a service to get what I want, so subsidies don't go to the other channels.
      You should be able to get your local TV stations for free over-the-air. Have you tried that?

      Comment


      • #4
        They all will come over the Internet

        10gb may or may not be enough ... how much do you watch?
        But I'd look to get more. Also look at the speed. You'll want as fast as you can afford.
        Fwiw att has some unlimited bandwidth plans for smart phones and tablets. Might be an option?

        The do not have over-the-air/RF signals like abc/NBC/cbs in the old days.

        Note that with the changes in net neutrality, your isp is allowed to give different streaming services different treatment, charges, access, etc. you should keep track of all the dense legal documents to see what's what...

        Comment


        • #5
          If I had to watch over the air TV stations, I would sell the TV.

          Where I am, the only means of broadband, is via wireless modem, with the exception of satellite. I will check if there is an unlimited, but so far I haven't seen one.

          Comment


          • #6
            I use direct tv for tv and hughsnet for isp I have 10,000 on hughsnet and that is not enough for my wife and I to use each month so I can't use anything that goes over my net

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by fjk View Post

              The do not have over-the-air/RF signals like abc/NBC/cbs in the old days.
              100% NOT TRUE.
              All the to old stations are still "on the air". Plus most stations now broadcast up to 1 + 5 side channels. Say channel 3. It might have 3.1 (mainHD), 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6. Your PBS will have them. You might also get FM radio stations broadcasting a playing now channel.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subchannel

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by fjk View Post

                Note that with the changes in net neutrality, your isp is allowed to give different streaming services different treatment, charges, access, etc. you should keep track of all the dense legal documents to see what's what...

                And that's the rub with taking away net neutrality - if you have no other viable options for ISP you are stuck with whatever yours does.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We have an outside antenna plus a DVD player that has internet. We watch Youtube and Netflix stuff using the DVD player. You still have the commercials on anything over the air but we get 20 or so channels including PBS and a couple movie channels. 10Gig is close but doable if you are careful and set your options in the streaming provider to the lowest resolution you can live with. Remember for years TV was 640 X 480 and we were more or less pretty happy with the resolution.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by fjk View Post
                    Note that with the changes in net neutrality, your isp is allowed to give different streaming services different treatment, charges, access, etc. you should keep track of all the dense legal documents to see what's what...
                    If this is going to happen, why didn't it happen already? And why hasn't it happened to wireless broadband, which was not affected by net neutrality? Net neutrality was only enacted in 2015. The internet had been around for more than 20 years prior to that. In other words, it returns the internet to the "horrible old days" of 2015 and before? What a joke.

                    Also, net neutrality opens the door for FCC regulation. Under Title II, the Internet is subject to a bevy of regulations at the whim of the FCC. ISPs have to submit proposals for any "new technology or business model" to the FCC, which will severely hamper innovation.

                    From https://www.dailywire.com/news/18613...aaron-bandler#

                    "The FCC can decline the request for an opinion, can permit the innovation, or can require more information from the submitting party," writes Brent Skorup of George Mason University in National Review. "These opaque determinations cannot be appealed, and affirmative decisions can be reversed at the agency’s whim."

                    Additionally, the FCC also has the power to "partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies" and determine "which companies (if any) can enter the ISP market," per Tuttle. In total, the Internet being under Title II's jurisdiction puts "nearly $1 trillion of GDP and 2.5 million jobs under a new regulatory regime," according to the American Action Forum. And what the FCC constitute's as "abuse" can be changed at any moment.

                    What this means is that Title II entrenches the FCC's tentacles into the ISP market and controls it with an iron fist.

                    The FCC can also subject ISPs to a slew of taxes under Title II. Per Tuttle, the FCC has the power to levy taxes against companies subject to Title II. Tuttle points out that "telecommunications companies are generally subject to higher state and municipal taxes than other businesses."

                    Between the onerous taxes and regulations, the FCC could make it more difficult for smaller ISPs to thrive in the market while increasing costs for consumers. FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai explained how smaller ISPs are struggling as a result of net neutrality regulations:

                    “Among our nation’s 12 largest internet service providers,” he told the audience, “domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016.” I ask him to elaborate. “As I’ve seen it and heard it,” he says, “Title II regulations have stood in the way of investment. Just last week, for instance, we heard from 19 municipal broadband providers. These are small, government-owned ISPs who told us that ‘even though we lack a profit motive, Title II has affected the way we do business.’ ”

                    The small ISPs reported that Title II was preventing them from rolling out new services and deepening their networks. “These are the kinds of companies that we want to provide a competitive alternative in the marketplace,” Mr. Pai says. “It seems to me they’re the canaries in the coal mine. If the smaller companies are telling us that the regulatory overhang is too much, that it hangs like a black cloud over our businesses—as 22 separate ISPs told us three weeks ago—then it seems to me there’s a problem here that needs to be solved.”

                    It's no wonder that one 2014 study estimated net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion in new ISP investments being lost over the next five years. There has already been some loss in investment, as "broadband capital expenditures among the dozen largest ISPs fell 5.6 percent from 2014 to 2016," according to Tuttle."

                    And of course why in the world would the tech titans, the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world, support net neutrality?? Zuckerberg, Bezos, the founders of Google, Apple CEO all supported it and offered to "help craft the legislation." And all of these tech titans just happen to be adherents to the same political belief system and all just happen to support the exact same politicians (including the one who signed this bill into law). If there was a more obvious power grab over who gets to determine what is seen on the net, I don't know what is.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I used to get "free to air" ... one day i was wondering - with all the satellites zooming around why can't i just aim a dish at one of them and pick up a signal - started researching it and yes you can. took a one meter dish and a special receiver (only 45 or 60 bucks if i remember correctly)

                      next step was to get my rotary table out and mount the dish on it to find the right sat. picked up the history channel and a few other for free totally legal and was actually fun for awhile - till that sat. either shot craps or the contract to air ended,,, actually now i remember - it's contract to air ended because it stopped working new years day...

                      seems scrambling signals takes money - so some smaller sat. stations just don't do it...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As I've posted before...

                        Net neutrality was there before 2015, but it was codified in 2015 in response to abuse by various companies.

                        The cable companies in particular have ridden a yoyo of regulation and deregulation, largely because they were granted monopolies in geographic areas and they tended to abuse their monopoly whenever they could.

                        I worked for Pacific Bell, a heavily regulated regional phone company. The regulations that "restricted innovation" were in place specifically because AT&T, our parent company, had been judged to have used it's monopoly to squash competition. After all, they developed the underlying technology for cell phones, their own line of computers, a whole computer language, etc, etc. When AT&T was broken up the resulting companies were prohibited from competing in many, many ways.

                        The internet would not be what it is today if it were not for various versions of net neutrality. The ISPs that sold DSL were not viable at first. In an effort to kickstart the ISP industry laws were enacted that required the phone companies to provide them with room in the phone company buildings to put their equipment and access to phone company lines at cost. It did not matter that these ISPs were competitors. The phone company was not allowed to discriminate between them.

                        If you want to see what you get without net neutrality, look at Sprint's "unlimited plan". They are parceling out your bandwidth based on whatever they decide the use is.
                        Sprint Unlimited Freedom plan details

                        Unlimited talk, text, and data (with certain restrictions)
                        Unlimited data for streaming video up to 1080p.
                        Unlimited data for gaming up to 8Mbps.
                        Unlimited data for streaming music up to 1.5Mbps.
                        and the fine print...
                        10GB/mo followed by unlimited MHS at 2G speeds. 10GB/line/mo. mobile hotspot, followed by unlimited MHS at 3G speeds.
                        At the end of the project, there is a profound difference between spare parts and extra parts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ahhh come on Dan, quit with the actual facts. Let these guys wallow in the information they get
                          from places like the Daily Wire. I really can see where they get their opinions from reading sites
                          like that. And to be fair, it isn't that their facts are always wrong ... they are just spun.

                          Edit : Slight apologies .. I didn't have my morning rock star yet ... grin ..
                          Last edited by Mike Amick; 12-30-2017, 02:14 PM.
                          John Titor, when are you.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have to laugh every time I read that regulation "impedes innovation".

                            I spent several years of my tenure at the phone company as the "Lab Manager" for groups working on developing new ways to use the phone company resources. By law, these were referred to as "enhanced services". Many of the projects were secret but some were actually shown off at conventions such as Comdex and the National Association of Broadcasters convention (NAB).

                            I'd certainly say that a 1994 project to use internet technologies to provide private communities with a way to share data and video when making movies was innovative. http://www.tfi.com/pubs/ntq/articles/view/95Q2_A6.html

                            An aspect of that project was one to digitize medical records and Xrays to make them available remotely. We did not have mobile phones and gigabit data lines, so we did a lot of things to present thumbnails and cropped images.

                            Another innovative project allowed you to use the same phone number when you changed phone (or cell phone) companies. Yep. We worked on that too.

                            Of course, we had to get permission to sell these things. All it took was a letter to the FCC. http://www.att.com/PublicAffairs/Pub...lans/81534.pdf

                            So tell me again that Comcast needs to be unregulated to be "innovative". Tell me again that they need to be able to charge ME more to watch a Youtube video in order to make their network stable. I need the laugh.

                            Dan
                            At the end of the project, there is a profound difference between spare parts and extra parts.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by danlb View Post
                              As I've posted before...Net neutrality was there before 2015, but it was codified in 2015 in response to abuse by various companies. The internet would not be what it is today if it were not for various versions of net neutrality.
                              "Net neutrality" is the name for a law enacted by the Obama administration in 2015. Net neutrality, as defined by the law enacted in 2015, didn't exist before it was enacted into law in 2015. If you want to claim "net neutrality" existed before 2015 (as it's defined within the law that carries its name), and it's actually what we have to thank for the free, unregulated internet we enjoyed prior to 2015? Then that's simply not true. Just because you worked for a phone company doesn't give you special power to "reinterpret the past."

                              In my opinion, net neutrality was an attempt (which will rear its head again, I'm quite certain) to establish a govt regulatory body that would/will be used to eventually assert control over content of the internet. All govt agencies are politicized today, including even our most sacrosanct agencies like the IRS, FBI and DOJ. There are no exceptions, there are no govt agencies that simply "do their job" uninfluenced by partisan politics. The people in power have always controlled the information the general public has access to throughout all of human history. This is the most critical element of them staying in power and increasing their power. Always has been, always will be. So, allowing the internet to continue to operate unabated and without govt control and influence is anathema to one side of the political fence. Especially after what happened during the last election cycle. Take a look at who supports it and who signed it into law. Those people are not interested in an open and free internet. They're interested in promoting what their personal interpretation of what a free and open internet is. Which includes some voices, but not others.

                              And this concept is nothing new. It's really just a warmed over internet version of the so called "fairness doctrine", which was brought to us by the same people and for the same reasons. They never go away, they never give up. They simply change its name, put a new spin on it, and try, try again. Meanwhile, various forces are already hard at work censoring certain political veiwpoints on the internet that happen to challenge the political leanings of the most powerful people on Earth (Zuckerberg, Bezos, Apple, Google CEOs etc), especially after the election cycle of 2016 when their chosen candidate was passed over. NN was the Camel's nose in the tent for building a govt system of control over content - that why the trillionaires to be all supported it.
                              Last edited by Machine; 12-30-2017, 02:54 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X