Getting rid of cable...

Aereo, "SCOTUS said we're a cable company, so treat us like a cable company!" Broadcasters, "Whoa, there, let's not be hasty about this."

Go get 'em, kids!

^^ This is the sort of stuff we need more of at Techforge.

Which reminds me, I get to learn how to hook up a solar power system this weekend, I'll make sure to take some photos.

That is awesomely ballsy on Aereo's part.

I learned something cool about Roku's tonight. Not every app does this, but it is something that every app can do, if they want. If you watch a cooking program on one of the numerous iFood.tv channels, when you hit the up arrow on your remote, it'll show you the recipe they're talking about on the program. If you hit the down arrow, it'll show you related recipes. This is handy, because they tend to flash the recipe rather quickly, which makes it hard to pause it long enough to read the recipe. I don't know of any other channels that do this, but I can think of a lot of uses for it, so hopefully other channels will start doing something similar soon.

Netflix forced to cough up money to AT&T.

*sigh*

This is going to continue until Netflix is dead. Then we'll have to accept AT&T's media streaming package, Time Warner/Comcast's media streaming package, and we'll have to like it as we watch it on their stuttering, bloated, exorbitantly expensive internet services while they talk about the fair market and how they offer the best service to the consumer.

from your link:

The deal gives Netflix direct access to AT&T's servers to reduce buffering times. This peering arrangement was made back in May with AT&T emailing out a statement earlier today.

As is still true with Netflix's previous peering arrangements, paying to bypass internet choke points still doesn't solve the inherent infrastructure problems that exist. Also, all these additional charges being heaped on Netflix, and any other service that will need to enter into similar arrangements, will most likely be translated into price hikes for streaming services. When really, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast should pay that price as it is their jobto deliver content to you.
​

While I appreciate your gnashing of teeth and rending of hair over a perceived injustice, how is netflix's bypassing "internet choke points" by accessing AT&T's, Comcast's and Verizon's servers directly and paying for the privilege while passing on the cost to their customers unfair? The alternative is for the last mile providers to provide this service and charge all their customers for netflix's access/bandwidth whether they use it or not (or would you prefer to pay by bandwidth usage?). These are the two alternatives. The internet isn't free, costs have to be paid or it will wither and die. Netflix and their users are consuming 30% of internet resources.

Really, how is this unfair? What sacrosanct Internet sharing agreement has been violated? Why shouldn't netflix users pay more either through increased netflix fees or bandwidth fees from their ISP? And I ask this as a happy Netflix user and early adopter of internet streaming.

Wrong thread by the way. Looking forward to the shitstorm.

The answer to this is metered internet access, the same way we do metered electricity, metered natural gas, and metered water. You pay for what you use.

The problem with that, however, is it'd be a continuation of what they're doing with cell service. If you used a streaming service which "just happened" to be owned by the cable (or cellphone) company, it wouldn't count against your data usage, but if you used a streaming that wasn't owned by the cable (or cellphone) company, it'd count against your data service. If we had the kind of competition amongst ISPs that they have in the UK, this wouldn't be an issue, since you'd have a choice in ISPs and could pick one that didn't do that kind of crap, or had a decent streaming service. As it is, we're stuck with shit, all the way around.

It leaked out a few months ago, that until Google started rolling out fiber, the big ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner) had cut the amount of money they were investing in improving their infrastructure (you know, so we could have faster speeds), and since Google's started their roll out , they've increased their infrastructure investments, but only in those areas where Google's looking to lay fiber.

Stick a fork in cable, folks. HBO has just announced that starting next year, you'll no longer need a cable subscription to get HBO! http://www.cnet.com/news/cord-cutters-hbo-to-start-online-only-subscriptions-in-2015/

Given that HBO has been unwilling to do this because of all the free advertising they get from cable companies, the fact that they're now pushing into this market means they realize how much they stand to lose if they stay with the current system. Guess Netflix and Hulu are really starting to eat into their market.

Awesome! If the price is reasonable, this is win/win.

Now if we can get these other networks to start showing their shows online I would have no problem dumping DirecTV.

Its not going to be long. HBO's the big dog, and with them admitting the old model is dead, everyone else is going to follow.

And now CBS announces their service.http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/16/...-streaming-service-no-cable-required-launches

CBS also launches a free 24/7 streaming news service.

Suck it, cable!

Sounds like it's time to update the roku channels!

I wish HBO had cut the cord a year ago, or else I'd totally have bought it for True Blood alone.

And next to sports, news is the only thing people have any reason to keep a TV around for. CBS is busting that door down, too. I'd pay for news before their other 5.99 bullshit for stuff I can see for free or on Hulu. But the death of cable diminishes no one, except the piggybanks of Cox and Comcast execs, so fuck 'em.

Cable companies and sat providers shit themselves because:

Hulu = $96 per year (thousands of TV shows, and back seasons if available)
Netflix = $96 per year (hundreds of thousands of movies and TV shows)
Amazon Prime = $99 per year (thousands of movies and TV shows, and you get free two day shipping!)
High Speed DSL connection (5+ mbps or better) = $540 per year (and you can probably get a better deal than me on this one)

Make a one time investment in a Roku box: $40-$90 (depending on what fancy extras you want)

Grand total: $69.25 per month

Still want local news and channels? $5 for a TV antenna.
All the shows you want, all the bloat removed.

^That, and the Internet provides an easy medium for foreign shows to be seen by a larger audience. Netflix even had the first season of Digimon last year, in the original Japanese, with subtitles. This was one of the first anime that many of its subscribers cut their teeth on. The subtitles left a lot to be desired, switching back and forth from the Japanese to English Dub names to consistently fucking up the gender of a cat Digimon that evolves to a creature that is named "Angelwomon" but still it was worth it to see the original show.

Nowadays, Funimation and a few other studios have the ability to release a subtitled episode the same night it airs in Japan, thanks to the 'Net.

Imagine my pleasant surprise when I found a number of anime shows on Netflix that had english subtitles! Since I'm trying to learn Japanese, it's a big boon for that. Also, I like knowing what the hell people are saying.

Hulu also has anime shows, both dubbed and subtitled, and there's quite a few anime channels available on the Roku.

FYI, Google has introduced a new version of the Google TV, called "Nexus Player." The reviews aren't exactly stellar.

And you know what? This is pretty much how all of the interwebs work. You cannot tell anything that you absolutely, positively, do not like something so please don't ever show it to me again. You might be able to tell some apps/websites that you don't like one individual thing, but there's never any option to allow you to say, "Please don't suggest any movies/TV shows starring Gary Busey because after he did Valley of the Wolves: Iraq, I never want him to darken my screen again." That really should be a choice offered, but it never is. By anyone.

There's more, but clearly, it sounds like your best bet is to get something else (like a Roku or an Apple TV), or wait for the next version.

Okay, going on three days now without internet (not using home computer of course) and all Comcast can give me is "there's an outage in your area. Estimated restore time is 2:00. You call at 2:00 and restore time is 5:00. Call at 5:00 time will be 8:00 and so on. The TV works great, but no internet. Yes, I get credit for the days I don't have a connection but that doesn't cut it.

So, give me some ideas. There's a company called WOW here. There is Direct TV of course. Do I have to buy a satellite or something from these people? Any experience (good or bad) with other providers? Nothing fancy, just typical TV channels and of course high-speed internet.

Well, AT&T has been pretty good for me, so far (but I've had it for less than a week). DirectTV has three options (though the third one may not be available in your area yet). The first option, which is available everywhere, is for them to hook up a satellite dish for your TV and connect a DSL phone line to your house. You'll get your TV via the satellite dish, and your internet via the DSL line. Depending upon how old your house is, the DSL line might require some rewiring. (This involves them bypassing the current phone lines, drilling a hole in an outside wall and running a new line into the house.) The second (and more expensive option) is for them to come out and install a satellite dish which gives you both internet and TV. The third option (and its only in limited areas right now, IIRC) is for DirectTV to come out, hook up a DSL line, and that will provide you with both your internet and TV.

The downsides are as follows: For the first option, you will have problems getting signal during bad weather. How much trouble depends upon your location and how bad the weather is. If you've got a really clear shot at the satellite, then the bad weather will have less impact on your signal, than if you've got things like buildings. (The dishes are generally pointed towards the southern sky.) The installer should be able to give you an idea of how much trouble you'll have during inclement weather when he comes out and looks at your place. (There's probably something on their website which can give you a general idea, but without seeing the actual lay of the land, they can't give you any specifics.)

The second option's downsides are that its expensive, and the amount of data you can use a month is pretty low (less than 10 gigs, last time I checked, but they might have changed that). If you never watch video on the web, you'll probably be fine, but if you have Netflix, Hulu, or similar video streaming service, you'll blow through that cap in almost no time, which will be pricey. There's also issues of lag, this is really only a problem if you play games online like Halo, or World of Warcraft. If you play games on Facebook, its not a problem at all, since response time is rarely a factor in those games.

The third option's downsides are that its not widely available yet, and if you're watching TV, it'll slow down your internet speeds noticeably. The big advantage to this set up, however, is that you don't have to worry about the weather taking out your internet or TV, unless things are so bad that it wipes out the phone lines. Which, if its that bad, you're probably going to be hiding from a tornado, and not really worried about watching TV or surfing the web so much.

The downside that all of them share is that the more TVs you have hooked up to the system, the more expensive it will be to set up, as each TV is going to require its own box. One solution to that is to simply wire up your main TV to the service, then plunk down $10 for this indoor digital TV antenna for your other TVs. That'll give you your local broadcast channels.

While DirecTV has plummeted in quality in recent years, I would stil recommend them over Comcast or Cox. I don't ever remember our signal being affected by storms...and this was in Northern California, which actually sees enough rain in most years to cause at least one flood around Sacramento.

I was mostly satisfied with DirecTV when we had it, but really heavy thunderstorms would often block the signal from punching through to our dish. I pay for my mom to have DirecTV at her house (she lives five miles from the nearest town, so no cable for her) and she hasn't mentioned anything about losing signal during big storms, so maybe they've improved. If I lived in the country I'd get it again, but UVerse is a more reliable option in the city.

We have DirecTV, and the signal quality is generally good until the rain gets very heavy. Light rain doesn't affect it much, but I've noticed dense cloud cover does, for obvious reasons. Lately we've been having some dense cloud cover, which is annoying. Well, annoying for my parents. I have Netflix and Hulu to watch. I rarely turn on my satellite box.

For old people, the best thing to do it set the shit up for them, teach them what they need to make things go, and they learn the rest.

Perfect example: My mom got FB after I joined the Navy so that we would have some more consistent communication besides the faulty emails and weekly phone calls from my end on phone booths. Long story short, she uses it more than I do and has more pissing matches on that shit than I've ever gotten into here in a decade....which is hilariously ironic when she'd yell at me for all the time I spent online talking to "people that aren't real." Dunno what she thought I was communicating to, then.

And also, DVR--my mom let me and my brother have the two free ones we got when we last had DirecTV because she just knew she'd never use the technology-- then she moved into my room after I left for the Navy. I come back three months later to find the box at 98 percent capasity, which is the bare minimum it needed to operate and not crash, including every airing of "RuPaul's Drag Race."