What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

We've cut the cable (6 Viewers)

Might be a dumb question - but does this news today mean that for instance Amazon could go directly to ESPN and say that they can distribute ESPN content "live" on their device?  Could Amazon have already done that?  What's keeping them from doing so?

Why can't we have a system where through one device (firestick, roku, chromecast, apple TV, whatever) I can pay $1 a month for any of these channels, $2 a month for any of those channels, and maybe $5 a month for any of these top tier channels?  I understand that would wipe out cable as we know it nearly overnight, and I'm ok with that.  Why does DIY, HGTV, ESPN, A&E, and so on....need Comcast to distribute their product?

 
Dude man, that's the ultimate dream. A la carte everything, it's what every single consumer wants. And the technology is there, has been forever which makes it even more frustrating that we're not there yet. That reason, is the TV providers wholly. It would be a death blow to cable providers, as bundles are how they make money. So that's why I am saying we all want it, but my excitement is tempered, because cable companies are gigantic publicly traded entities with power and influence everywhere. This is going to be a fun battle to watch, because literally no one will be rooting for the current TV service providers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Might be a dumb question - but does this news today mean that for instance Amazon could go directly to ESPN and say that they can distribute ESPN content "live" on their device?  Could Amazon have already done that?  What's keeping them from doing so?

Why can't we have a system where through one device (firestick, roku, chromecast, apple TV, whatever) I can pay $1 a month for any of these channels, $2 a month for any of those channels, and maybe $5 a month for any of these top tier channels?  I understand that would wipe out cable as we know it nearly overnight, and I'm ok with that.  Why does DIY, HGTV, ESPN, A&E, and so on....need Comcast to distribute their product?
I thought of it as, what if those channels just start charging to use their apps instead? They could get rid of the middle man (cable) and just charge people a monthly fee to access the content on their apps

 
To add to the above, that's why Kodi and it's offerings are so much fun to tinker with and use. It's more or less a big "FU" to the outdated live TV delivery model currently in place.

Think cabs vs. Uber, because this is exactly where this is headed with BYOD and a la carte offerings. Comcast, DirecTV, etc. are the cabbies in this case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dude man, that's the ultimate dream. A la carte everything, it's what every single consumer wants. And the technology is there, has been forever which makes it even more frustrating that we're not there yet. That reason, is the TV providers wholly. It would be a death blow to cable providers, as bundles are how they make money. So that's why I am saying we all want it, but my excitement is tempered, because cable companies are gigantic publicly traded entities with power and influence everywhere. This is going to be a fun battle to watch, because literally no one will be rooting for the current TV service providers.
So how did Sling do it?  Did they go to ESPN, AMC and others - or the other way around?  They aren't totally letting me pick my channels, but it's really close and if they provided my locals as well, would be more than enough for me.

Cable companies would still have revenue sources, though.  First off mine would still charge me $70 for high speed internet - and I'd likely have to increase my speed if all my TV viewing came in that way.  Secondly, after a while of adding multiple $1 channels, and $2 channels and $5 channels - it just makes sense to buy the entire package from the cable provider.  Me personally, I'd be ok with my locals, a few ESPNs (which I'm sure would be in the $5 category), A&E and a few others - the wife would want DIY, HGTV, AMC, and a few others - and soon enough my son would want some kiddie shows.  Add all those up and we're at $30-50 in my example.  Makes sense just to go through the cable company at that point - but it would at least introduce competition (which Sling has done).

 
To add to the above, that's why Kodi and it's offerings are so much fun to tinker with and use. It's more or less a big "FU" to the outdated live TV delivery model currently in place.

Think cabs vs. Uber, because this is exactly where this is headed with BYOD and a la carte offerings. Comcast, DirecTV, etc. are the cabbies in this case.
If that's the example you want to use, the "real world" throws up road blocks.  I work in insurance, and carriers are scared to death to insure someone who's using their vehicle for Uber type purposes.  So you get in an accident, you might be on your own.  Is the only "legal" way I can watch DIY or HGTV via comcast or DirecTV or the like?  And if so, why?  Why can't they come directly to me, one by one?

 
Sling is a great step in the right direction, but not a death blow because it's not true a la carte. And you're right, that's exactly what the cable companies do - if you cut the cord on TV, your internet price skyrockets. You can go into a store with Xfinity and work around that, but for the most part that's how they'll continue to exist. Cable companies smartly own the internet infrastructure into your home or apartment, so they'll never go away. But, they are generally speaking robbing people blind on regular TV package bundles and equipment. This move by the FCC is a great step in the right direction, but like anything else they'll fight back hard. It will be fun to observe.

 
If that's the example you want to use, the "real world" throws up road blocks.  I work in insurance, and carriers are scared to death to insure someone who's using their vehicle for Uber type purposes.  So you get in an accident, you might be on your own.  Is the only "legal" way I can watch DIY or HGTV via comcast or DirecTV or the like?  And if so, why?  Why can't they come directly to me, one by one?
Exactly. Consumers want this, providers don't. Generally speaking, the price you pay for a bundle of channels to only watch the few you actually do watch is much higher than what you might pay for the 5-10 individual networks you would buy a la carte. It's like getting a car and wanting heated seats as an option, but to get heated seats you have to get the "Winter Package" with 10 other things you don't really want, but it's the only way to get heated seats. That is what needs to change, consumers want a la carte options and they should get them. BYOD is a small step in that direction.

 
Sling is a great step in the right direction, but not a death blow because it's not true a la carte. And you're right, that's exactly what the cable companies do - if you cut the cord on TV, your internet price skyrockets. You can go into a store with Xfinity and work around that, but for the most part that's how they'll continue to exist. Cable companies smartly own the internet infrastructure into your home or apartment, so they'll never go away. But, they are generally speaking robbing people blind on regular TV package bundles and equipment. This move by the FCC is a great step in the right direction, but like anything else they'll fight back hard. It will be fun to observe.
Yeah, I get that - and that is what it is.  They have a service that quite frankly, my family can not do without.  That infrastructure allows my wife to telecommute, rather than a hour or so commute each way (without traffic, could be twice that with traffic).  That's ~8k miles on a car - $600 or so in gas each year and other wear and tear - and 10 hours a week she could otherwise me making my dinner....I mean spending time with me and our son.  They could charge us $200 a month just for internet....and we'd pay it.  I just don't want them to know that.

The fact that the infrastructure you mention is also the delivery vehicle for TV (and "home phone") adds some complications.  Either they provide that for me, and maybe I get a price break via a "bundle", or I get that from another source through their infrastructure, and they charge me more for it's use.

 
Exactly. Consumers want this, providers don't. Generally speaking, the price you pay for a bundle of channels to only watch the few you actually do watch is much higher than what you might pay for the 5-10 individual networks you would buy a la carte. It's like getting a car and wanting heated seats as an option, but to get heated seats you have to get the "Winter Package" with 10 other things you don't really want, but it's the only way to get heated seats. That is what needs to change, consumers want a la carte options and they should get them. BYOD is a small step in that direction.
Who do you mean by "providers"?  I agree that comcast and Directv doesn't....but what does ESPN or AMC want?  HBO went out and did both HBO go and HBO now.  You can totally "a la carte" them.  Why did they do that, and no others really have?  I assume they did it to help their bottom line, and I assume it worked.  So why don't others follow suit?

 
Who do you mean by "providers"?  I agree that comcast and Directv doesn't....but what does ESPN or AMC want?  HBO went out and did both HBO go and HBO now.  You can totally "a la carte" them.  Why did they do that, and no others really have?  I assume they did it to help their bottom line, and I assume it worked.  So why don't others follow suit?
Providers are the intermediaries or middle men like Comcast, DirecTV. They are technologically obsolete, as you really only need their internet connection to buy channels from 3rd parties a la carte such as ESPN, Fox Sports, Spike, etc. You don't need their clunky boxes technologically speaking. They have relied on the revenue gained by being the middle man to distribute ESPN, Fox Sports, etc. to you for so long they don't want to give it up, long before the internet came along as a second feasible TV content delivery option. Time is coming, and HBO in my opinion has so much pull/clout in terms of consumer demand for their content that HBO could do this and Comcast, DirecTV, etc. are not going to get in their way. Showtime followed suit shortly after. Beginning of a movement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sling is a great step in the right direction, but not a death blow because it's not true a la carte. And you're right, that's exactly what the cable companies do - if you cut the cord on TV, your internet price skyrockets. You can go into a store with Xfinity and work around that, but for the most part that's how they'll continue to exist. Cable companies smartly own the internet infrastructure into your home or apartment, so they'll never go away. But, they are generally speaking robbing people blind on regular TV package bundles and equipment. This move by the FCC is a great step in the right direction, but like anything else they'll fight back hard. It will be fun to observe.
There will be other options soon, Google fiber is coming to my town....bye-bye Time Warner.

 
I'm not sure that's true, but I'm not sure.  I can "stream" any of my cable channels now on my iphone or computer.  Why couldn't I do so with a roku or similar with this news?
Good point.  Shark move for the cable companies to abandon "cable tv" all together and start selling a streaming box tv device in order to get their channel streaming packages?  Mindblown, what am I missing here?  I mean other streaming services aren't necessarily exclusive or required to be open to other companies boxes.

Right now the measures read "cable boxes from other companies".  The above wouldn't happen overnight and there are a lot of customers dependent on those cable boxes that wouldn't know how to move directly to streaming on their own to their television sets.  I still think they are talking about co-ax in on these boxes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As of today, Google, Apple and Amazon won a big battle to bring you cable TV

"On Thursday, the U.S. government took its first big, official step to end that system. 

The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a series of proposed rules that would allow customers to begin using cable boxes from companies other than their cable provider. 

In fact, consumers will be able to get cable TV from a multitude of devices, when the technology catches up. That could include Apple TV, Fire TV, Android TV and Roku boxes."
This isn't new news and it won't really matter.

Somewhere between 4-7 years ago, there was talk of the same thing in an effort to break down the walls where the cable companies had a stranglehold on things but what they found very quickly was the barriers of entry were impossible because the cable providers holding all the cards made the hoops and hurdles and processes financially impossible for any start up to try to break in.  So that left us with nobody except the true heavies that could do anything.

Which is what we got in APple, Google, Amazon, etc except that they are all smart and they knew right away that the providers weren't going to give them a slice of their pie willingly so they did what happens everytime the standing institution won't play ball with innovators: they went AROUND them and made their own stuff...which is better than what the providers had/have. 

IMO, the Genie is *this close* to being out of the bottle. Cable is doomed.  The only think left is really the manipulation games where consumers end up bent over for a while.  "Oh, you don't want our cable anymore..fine..did we mention we are now charging $50 more a month for the higher data you are streaming now?"  "Oh, you want this? Ok, but we will charge ridiculous amounts for our proprietory equipment that is needed to run it."

We are just going to have to endure that part of it until we get enough competition in the markets across the U.S. to have true competition across the board...but it's coming. 

 
We are just going to have to endure that part of it until we get enough competition in the markets across the U.S. to have true competition across the board...but it's coming. 
So you're saying someone else is going to run a coax (or other internet delivery capable cable) to my house?  Comcast is the only provider that's even available to me for internet - other than satellite, which is still way off for being able to provide enough bandwidth for the average home.

 
So you're saying someone else is going to run a coax (or other internet delivery capable cable) to my house?  Comcast is the only provider that's even available to me for internet - other than satellite, which is still way off for being able to provide enough bandwidth for the average home.
Holly chit!

 
Posted this in another thread but figured I'd try here since it's a bit more "cord-cutting" focused than actual streaming ability. Appreciate any help...

So I have the Fire Stick and wanted to move it from the bedroom where we have it set up (non-smart TV) to the living room TV for a little bit to watch some of these streams out there. Since it's kind of a pain to unhook the stick from behind the dresser we have it set up at, I was thinking of just buying a second one. But then hooking the stick up to that living room TV leads to the Fire Stick cord being stretched to a surge protector in order to get it plugged in. I looked into a cord that will hook the stick up to the USB port of my Samsung TV and power the stick that way. But it looks like it's not drawing enough power from the TV to keep the stick powered on. 

Are there any other options to either draw more power from the TV or provide more power to the Fire Stick through some kind of booster cable? First world problems, I know. 

 
So you're saying someone else is going to run a coax (or other internet delivery capable cable) to my house?  Comcast is the only provider that's even available to me for internet - other than satellite, which is still way off for being able to provide enough bandwidth for the average home.
Satellite has the opportunity to get where we want but it's fiber optics (or possibly something we aren't aware of yet that will turn this on its ear). 

Here's the thing:  ESPN lost 3.2 Million subscribers last year and 7.2% of their subscribers since 2011.  We (us here in forums like these) tend to say that sports and ESPN is what keeps the provider bundles afloat.  There is pretty good evidence to show that its; truly our wives and kids that do, as polls have shown its the Discovery, HGTV, E!, mass that outranks ESPN), but for the sake of what WE believe, let's say it's ESPN. 

So, ESPN is the "big bad" in this and ESPN is in it with Sling for one reason: it is financially beneficial to them to offer this al a carte product with Sling IF the buyers are people who are new entrants and it is not financially beneficial to them IF people are simply trading higher price cable packages for Sling. That's not opinion, that is straight from ESPN president's John Skipper's mouth. Dish (bless their number pushers) is doing a fantastic job of showing ESPN the numbers that suggest that the "significant" business coming into Sling is being drive by new entrants.  Thus, ESPN is "content".  However, it should be noted that ESPN has an out in their contract that they can kill the deal if they lose more than 3 Million subscribers as of May 2014, which they did.  So they can do what they want.

Roku, meanwhile is not backing today's news because, honestly, ROKU is in bed with TWC and Comcast right now selling them a ####-ton of streamers so that those two can explore their own streaming options (which they are doing in NEW York and a few places). 

ESPN and Apple are talking but haven't gotten anywhere in what I imagine is a spectacular pissing contest marking territory. 

So, here we are as everyone is fighting over the EXISTING pie with the tech we have currently.  Meanwhile, down in Atlanta, Google fiber is rolling in and making pee trickle down Comcast's legs.  If they have it their way, Comcast will be the poster child for the true WALKING DEAD in Atlanta because Conmcast has the market by the throat and offers either cheap, crappy 5mbps service OR really fast service (like 1GBPS for $1000.00/mo) Yep, that's a thousand dollars.  Google is down there trying to use existing fiber optics already wired into buildings trying to set up a 1 GBPS (giga) system for $120/mo. 

We (you and I) are the pioneers here.  Our choices are blazing trails.  But we are talking the hard road because we are doing what ESPN doesn't want.  We aren't NEW entrants. We are the cord cutters who are trading down, saving bucks.  ESPN don't like that.  We aren't going to be the ones that win this war. Instead, it is going to be army behind us, the "CORD NEVERS" who come in and kick this door down because they have none of the "programming" we are hardwired with to work around. They just see it as "the tech is there to watch what I want, NOT watch what I don't want (and not pay for it), watch it WHEN I want, and get it on FAST speeds.     THe cord nevers are going to be the ones that push all these new options to the point where competition brings the price down for all us..just in time to be able to afford it on our retirement plans!

 
Posted this in another thread but figured I'd try here since it's a bit more "cord-cutting" focused than actual streaming ability. Appreciate any help...

So I have the Fire Stick and wanted to move it from the bedroom where we have it set up (non-smart TV) to the living room TV for a little bit to watch some of these streams out there. Since it's kind of a pain to unhook the stick from behind the dresser we have it set up at, I was thinking of just buying a second one. But then hooking the stick up to that living room TV leads to the Fire Stick cord being stretched to a surge protector in order to get it plugged in. I looked into a cord that will hook the stick up to the USB port of my Samsung TV and power the stick that way. But it looks like it's not drawing enough power from the TV to keep the stick powered on. 

Are there any other options to either draw more power from the TV or provide more power to the Fire Stick through some kind of booster cable? First world problems, I know. 
Will it even turn on?  How old is your tv?  There are 3 types of USB ports: data, data+power and dedicated power.  Make sure you have one that is supplying power, they should be labeled on the tv.  Then there are 3 USB specs: 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0.  From what I've read I think the firestick needs 900mA to work and I think than means  3.0 USB (not 100% sure).  The 3.0 USB ports will be blue instead of black.  Check the firestick plug in adapter and see what amperage it is rated at. 

 
Will it even turn on?  How old is your tv?  There are 3 types of USB ports: data, data+power and dedicated power.  Make sure you have one that is supplying power, they should be labeled on the tv.  Then there are 3 USB specs: 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0.  From what I've read I think the firestick needs 900mA to work and I think than means  3.0 USB (not 100% sure).  The 3.0 USB ports will be blue instead of black.  Check the firestick plug in adapter and see what amperage it is rated at. 
TV is a bit over 4 years old at this point.

It turns on, but when I go to launch Kodi it powers off and resets. 

I'll look into the different USB port types tonight. From memory I think I have at least a couple. Thanks for the heads up. 

 
:thumbup:   Just thinking out load if this happens:

1-  The tv box devices need to start integrating a co-ax input obviously for this to work.  Once that happens apps should start to pop up for OTA support as well if not already integrated into the cable tv apps.  My biggest pet peeve. :D

2- The signals from the cable company wouldn't be scrambled/encrypted anymore which will make it much easier for DVRing and pirating.  It will virtually kill the on demand market unless a bunch of agreements are made between the cable companies and all the set top box companies.

3- The most interesting thing to watch if this ever happens is how the cable companies react.  Do they lower their prices to stay competitive and a adapt to the chancing market possibly offering channels a la carte?  Or do they stay status quo and raise their prices to try and recoup their losses?  If it's the latter it may ultimately end in their demise.
Is there any doubt that it'll be the latter?

Cable rates are currently skyrocketing as providers are losing subscribers. No reason to think they'd treat a reduction in box rentals any differently.

 
Who do you mean by "providers"?  I agree that comcast and Directv doesn't....but what does ESPN or AMC want?  HBO went out and did both HBO go and HBO now.  You can totally "a la carte" them.  Why did they do that, and no others really have?  I assume they did it to help their bottom line, and I assume it worked.  So why don't others follow suit?
It'll all eventually come down to the consumer.

Channels want to go the cable route because, at the moment, the vast majority of consumers still turn to cable. Most people still have cable without a 2nd thought about the alternatives. Most people still have no idea what Sling TV, or even a Roku, is.

ESPN has over 90 million subscribers. Only about 700K of those come from Sling. It'll certainly be changing in the future, but for now, the best way for a channel to get paid subscriptions is through traditional cable. 

 
What is the best Video add on for HD sports on Fire stick?  
For free, I'd go with a combo of Sports Devil and Kodi Pro Sports.

For pay, I use SportsAccess.se. It costs ~ $10/month and is payable in Bitcoin. Personally, I love it. No buffer HD and offers all sorts of pro and college sports channels, as well as a ton of non-sports standalone cable TV channels with multiple servers for each. If all they offered was Sunday Ticket and RZ like they do on top of everything else, still worth it. It's $12 in Bitcoin month-to-month and $10 if you do 3 months at a time, which I do. Whatever you're comfortable with, so if the site ever got shut down, it's not the end of the world financially. But it rocks, and all PPV fights/events are on it too.

I use the free ones as a backup, and they're great as well. I'm just a quality wh0re so $10/mo is fine by me for convenience and quality. Pro Sports would be your primary for pro sports, as it scrapes from Reddit users posting live links to pro games, and Sports Devil for Pro and College, but really anything. Sports Devil is hit or miss like any free sports streaming site as links get hammered with users so they buffer or just get shut down by the leagues. But, it's free and most of the time you'll be fine. Not part of a repo, so it has to be manually updated every month or two. Just go to that link every month/2 months or if you notice a lot of links not working and you'll be fine.

 
I'd try the free ones out first and see how you like them, no risk there to try. If you find yourself at all frustrated, and have the time/inclination try Sports Access. It involves paying in Bitcoin and isn't for everyone, but I'm a fan personally. Most people honestly are more than satisfied with Sports Devil + Pro Sports. Big thing if you're just starting out with Kodi is that it's a learning curve, but once you get over that and have some time + patience, it'll become second nature and you'll begin to just love the Kodi environment.

 
mquinnjr said:
I'd try the free ones out first and see how you like them, no risk there to try. If you find yourself at all frustrated, and have the time/inclination try Sports Access. It involves paying in Bitcoin and isn't for everyone, but I'm a fan personally. Most people honestly are more than satisfied with Sports Devil + Pro Sports. Big thing if you're just starting out with Kodi is that it's a learning curve, but once you get over that and have some time + patience, it'll become second nature and you'll begin to just love the Kodi environment.
You seem very knowledgeable with kodi.  I'm still very new to it, and so far it's been fun.  Can you explain to a kodi noob like me what I'm actually doing when I install a repository, then have to go back and install from zip, then have to go back and "get add ons".  What am I really doing in each of those steps?

 
You seem very knowledgeable with kodi.  I'm still very new to it, and so far it's been fun.  Can you explain to a kodi noob like me what I'm actually doing when I install a repository, then have to go back and install from zip, then have to go back and "get add ons".  What am I really doing in each of those steps?
I interpret the whole process as follows. Might be technically right or wrong, but it's how I make sense of what I'm doing when i install programs:

  • Repository is a single bucket from a developer or group of developers containing many separate bundles of program code, which each perform separate tasks or functions as per the developer's intent.
  • You are first loading the bucket into Kodi when you install a repository,

    Either through having Kodi download the repository from the Internet,
  • or by loading a zip file of the repository that you load yourself manually onto the box that you are using to run Kodi.

[*]Once the bucket (repository) of bundles (programs) is loaded into Kodi, you then install each individual bundle (program/add-on) which is the same as installing a program onto a computer.

[*]Kodi is really an operating system within an operating system.

  • The difference being Kodi has an open architecture (I can load whatever code I want/have, which might contain programs that are designed to circumvent my having to purchase content to watch it)
  • vs. a closed architecture (e.g., Apple TV OS without a jailbreak, native Amazon OS, etc. for whatever device you are using for Kodi where Apple/Amazon/etc is the only place to buy/watch content).

That's as simple as I can try to break it down, and I hope that helps. I'll try my best if any of the above is fuzzy/unclear, and enjoy Kodi!

 
Providers are the intermediaries or middle men like Comcast, DirecTV. They are technologically obsolete, as you really only need their internet connection to buy channels from 3rd parties a la carte such as ESPN, Fox Sports, Spike, etc. You don't need their clunky boxes technologically speaking. They have relied on the revenue gained by being the middle man to distribute ESPN, Fox Sports, etc. to you for so long they don't want to give it up, long before the internet came along as a second feasible TV content delivery option. Time is coming, and HBO in my opinion has so much pull/clout in terms of consumer demand for their content that HBO could do this and Comcast, DirecTV, etc. are not going to get in their way. Showtime followed suit shortly after. Beginning of a movement.
I guess my fear of getting started with this is what is stopping Comcast and the like to get the Feds to go after people streaming much like they did with file sharing?

What's to stop Comcast Internet to track who is going to these sites and report it to Comcast cable?

 
I guess my fear of getting started with this is what is stopping Comcast and the like to get the Feds to go after people streaming much like they did with file sharing?

What's to stop Comcast Internet to track who is going to these sites and report it to Comcast cable?
My interpretation is that it's so wide spread, that they can only catch a few to cull the herd.

- With BitTorrent, if you don't use a VPN, the feds can enter a swarm and see the IP addresses of all people downloading and uploading XYZ file. For people sharing files if you are not behind a VPN with a fake IP and an ISP provides your data (based upon your real IP address) to the Feds, you just might be one of the ones who they try to make an example out of in the news to scare the masses.

- With file locker sites, like the ones that many Kodi apps "scrape" files from that you stream via Kodi apps like Exodus/Genesis, they have to go to a site being "scraped" for links to TV shows/Movies/etc. like Mega Upload, Media Fire, etc. and have them comply to provide a list of all IP addresses who accessed files that infringe on copyright owners on their services, and then hunt down the IP addresses of the downloaders, etc.

I imagine pursuing file locker sites would be as much of a hassle as it sounds like it would be, so they go for the easier target which is non-VPN usage of torrents for copyrighted file sharing. They can never police all of this activity, so they get a few cases here and there, take a small sample of file sharers and throw the book at them in the hopes that it scares people off from streaming/downloading copyrighted material.

Clearly, it's not working.

 
I guess my fear of getting started with this is what is stopping Comcast and the like to get the Feds to go after people streaming much like they did with file sharing?

What's to stop Comcast Internet to track who is going to these sites and report it to Comcast cable?
What's illegal about legit streaming (like Sling or HBO now)?  Sure stuff like kodi is a grey area (lets not go there), but if ESPN and Fox sports want to sell directly to me so that I can stream their product - what could Comcast be upset about?

 
What's illegal about legit streaming (like Sling or HBO now)?  Sure stuff like kodi is a grey area (lets not go there), but if ESPN and Fox sports want to sell directly to me so that I can stream their product - what could Comcast be upset about?
Nothing is wrong with legit streaming.

However, Kodi is not grey.  There is tons of intellectual property stealing that's even been discussed in this thread (someone talked about Deadpool being available).  I'll admit I did plenty of music stealing back in the Napster days, but I'm older now and won't do it again.

 
Nothing is wrong with legit streaming.

However, Kodi is not grey.  There is tons of intellectual property stealing that's even been discussed in this thread (someone talked about Deadpool being available).  I'll admit I did plenty of music stealing back in the Napster days, but I'm older now and won't do it again.
I think you mean some of the add ons in kodi are not grey.  Kodi can be used to stream your own content on your own network just as easily as it can be used to stream the intellectual property of others.  In fact, that's why I initially got it.  Used it to stream legit local stuff, and used roku or chromecast to stream legit stuff via apps.

 
What's illegal about legit streaming (like Sling or HBO now)?  Sure stuff like kodi is a grey area (lets not go there), but if ESPN and Fox sports want to sell directly to me so that I can stream their product - what could Comcast be upset about?
I currently watch a ton of live sports, and I think if I went to streaming that I would have to install Kodi to get the channels or packages that are not available thru Sling or directly from the league.

 
I think you mean some of the add ons in kodi are not grey.  Kodi can be used to stream your own content on your own network just as easily as it can be used to stream the intellectual property of others.  In fact, that's why I initially got it.  Used it to stream legit local stuff, and used roku or chromecast to stream legit stuff via apps.
Where did you break bad, man?  What pushed you across the line? :)

 
I think you mean some of the add ons in kodi are not grey.  Kodi can be used to stream your own content on your own network just as easily as it can be used to stream the intellectual property of others.  In fact, that's why I initially got it.  Used it to stream legit local stuff, and used roku or chromecast to stream legit stuff via apps.
Kodi, in it's original form, is perfectly legal. It's no different than using your web browser to find some streaming content. It's simply a better organized approach.

The addons are the gray area and I think most of us being logical, practical and reasonable can probably discern pretty quickly when we've crossed the line.  If you install an addon that is streaming stuff you KNOW you shouldn't be able to see for free (a movie that came out a few weeks ago or a sports event that is broadcast on a pay cable provider), then you kinda know....

 
I guess my fear of getting started with this is what is stopping Comcast and the like to get the Feds to go after people streaming much like they did with file sharing?

What's to stop Comcast Internet to track who is going to these sites and report it to Comcast cable?
My big fear is that decent internet service will soon cost $150+/mo. 

For markets where there is little to no competition for Comcast and TWC, this seems pretty much inevitable. As much as I'd like more people to cut the cord, I think we might be at the sweet spot or close to it. The status quo is pretty sweet for a cordcutter. Tons of great content and reasonable ISP prices. When more people cut the cord, it might be nice to get more content, but prices will go up on the content and the internet service. Save for the 0.0001% of the population that will see Google Fiber in their lifetimes.

 
I guess my fear of getting started with this is what is stopping Comcast and the like to get the Feds to go after people streaming much like they did with file sharing?

What's to stop Comcast Internet to track who is going to these sites and report it to Comcast cable?
I suppose Comcast could install Kodi and various apps to try and find "illegal" streams.  The problem with that is there are thousand and thousand.  And then there are thousands waiting to take their place.  They can't find out who's watched the stream, especially if the watcher is using a VPN.

Nothing is wrong with legit streaming.

However, Kodi is not grey.  There is tons of intellectual property stealing that's even been discussed in this thread (someone talked about Deadpool being available).  I'll admit I did plenty of music stealing back in the Napster days, but I'm older now and won't do it again.
As several have said "Kodi" is open source software and is not considered illegal in any way.

If you happen to install an addon that brings you a "stream" of content and it appears that the "streamer" is violating someone's copyright what have you done illegal?  You never took possession of or downloaded anything copyrighted.

If you believe this is not grey then you shouldn't install the youtube application on any of your devices either.  You can log onto youtube and "listen" to any song you want for example that I would guess most of which may be copyrighted.

I am unaware of anyone prosecuted successfully in the court system for watching a suspected copyrighted stream in the USA.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My big fear is that decent internet service will soon cost $150+/mo. 

For markets where there is little to no competition for Comcast and TWC, this seems pretty much inevitable. As much as I'd like more people to cut the cord, I think we might be at the sweet spot or close to it. The status quo is pretty sweet for a cordcutter. Tons of great content and reasonable ISP prices. When more people cut the cord, it might be nice to get more content, but prices will go up on the content and the internet service. Save for the 0.0001% of the population that will see Google Fiber in their lifetimes.
My fear as well, and it's actually a reality for me.  I, like you, live out in rural VA (I think me moreso than you).  I have one choice for high speed internet.  One.  And they know it.  What they don't know (I hope) is that my family couldn't function properly without their service - my wife telecommutes.  We'd pay $200+ a month for high speed if we had to.  I asked what an internet only package from them would be - $70.  I get faster internet (currently I think 95/15 or something) and their HD DVR pretty extensive cable package all in for only ~$2 or so more than that per day. 

 
Honestly, even if you're a copyright fanboy what's more illegal; watching a rerun of The Walking Dead or a 2-3 large corporate company monopoly with a market hold on "cable" tv, price setting, price gouging and contract ransoms? 

We've had enough.  I use Kodi, but, I also subscribe to Slingtv, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.  De-monopolize it, make it competitive, affordable and convenient.... and we will gladly pay.

 
One of the more interesting things I have noticed in this thread since I latched onto it is the various reasons people are cord-cutting.

In some shape, fashion, or form, it seems like it will come back to wanting a fair choice, on some level or another.  I know for me it kind of comes down t o a pride and principle thing.  Instead of being about whether I can afford cable or wanting to argue over quality of service, I simply pushed the issue because I wanted to answer the question, "exactly WHY am I paying for something that I can substitute reasonably for less?"

It's that kind of thinking that makes me think, long-term, the fears that we might give up cable and get gouged on the cost of Internet (cut off our noses to spite our face) won't actually come to fruition because I think the very people that will push this movement forward will also be the first to call B.S. when providers begin trying to justify more use of megabites as something that must be justified by large cost increases.  In reality, we could stream all day and it's one of the cheapest things a company would have to adjust for to meet the demand of the public.  With those things in mind, I think we will see a decent, reasonable outcome.  The greed of these companies willing to fight over the known pieces of pie will be what does them in because history shows us that companies like that always try to use what they know to push others out or keep them out and they do it so well that the "little" guys simply work around them and end up delivering something better.

 
Some random thoughts from someone who's less savvy and probably older than most who post here regularly (meaning a larger portion of my life has been lived as a passive entertainment consumer). I realize that some of my thoughts below will contradict one another and that's because I'm still trying to wrap my head around a lot of this.

1. What Shutout posted above about the "never-weres" was really eye-opening to me. It's not the folks posting here who are going to cause the break, it's those who are kids and don't give a flying #### about what comes on when/where/how. Today's provider giants are so focused on "us" (those like the folks posting in this thread) - a two foot wave rolling towards the beach - that they don't see the tsunami on the horizon.

2. I, too, wonder if internet costs are going to sky-rocket when cable TV subscriptions dip below a certain level. My gut tells me "yes", because cable TV will become part of the all-encompassing "internet". The method may change, but the content providers (studios, talent, etc...) still will want to get paid. 

3. If there were to be a Big Cable Armegeddon, would a "too big to fail" mindset come into play for the government?

4. How would a government sponsored "free high speed internet for all" work? Is it even feasible? 

5. It's semantics, but how close are we to where the internet is a necessary utility (electricity) instead of a luxury (TV)? For people like Matty's wife, it already is, but I wonder how close it is to being considered one generally.

6. I doubt any kind of true a la carte programming would save most people money if they kept their same viewing habits. As someone said above, the nickels and dimes can add up quickly. I think I read that ESPN charges carriers something like $7 per subscriber. I think it's that "low" because, by charging it through a company that has millions of payers, they don't have to actually work to put huge dollars in the till. I'd bet a single-user account for ESPN access (like HBONow) would run in excess of $20/month. 

7. What the providers are doing now reminds me of how the music industry fought tooth-and-nail against file sharing instead of embracing (& profiting) from it. Big Music still thinks they won that, but they didn't. Instead, they've now gone after small internet radio stations charging them insane royalty fees that will put most out of business. 

 
Some random thoughts from someone who's less savvy and probably older than most who post here regularly (meaning a larger portion of my life has been lived as a passive entertainment consumer). I realize that some of my thoughts below will contradict one another and that's because I'm still trying to wrap my head around a lot of this.

1. What Shutout posted above about the "never-weres" was really eye-opening to me. It's not the folks posting here who are going to cause the break, it's those who are kids and don't give a flying #### about what comes on when/where/how. Today's provider giants are so focused on "us" (those like the folks posting in this thread) - a two foot wave rolling towards the beach - that they don't see the tsunami on the horizon.

2. I, too, wonder if internet costs are going to sky-rocket when cable TV subscriptions dip below a certain level. My gut tells me "yes", because cable TV will become part of the all-encompassing "internet". The method may change, but the content providers (studios, talent, etc...) still will want to get paid. 

3. If there were to be a Big Cable Armegeddon, would a "too big to fail" mindset come into play for the government?

4. How would a government sponsored "free high speed internet for all" work? Is it even feasible? 

5. It's semantics, but how close are we to where the internet is a necessary utility (electricity) instead of a luxury (TV)? For people like Matty's wife, it already is, but I wonder how close it is to being considered one generally.

6. I doubt any kind of true a la carte programming would save most people money if they kept their same viewing habits. As someone said above, the nickels and dimes can add up quickly. I think I read that ESPN charges carriers something like $7 per subscriber. I think it's that "low" because, by charging it through a company that has millions of payers, they don't have to actually work to put huge dollars in the till. I'd bet a single-user account for ESPN access (like HBONow) would run in excess of $20/month. 

7. What the providers are doing now reminds me of how the music industry fought tooth-and-nail against file sharing instead of embracing (& profiting) from it. Big Music still thinks they won that, but they didn't. Instead, they've now gone after small internet radio stations charging them insane royalty fees that will put most out of business. 
2- you'll still pay for streaming services like you mention later on. 

6- ESPN is already available for $20 that includes 22 other channels and growing through slingtv. it will have to be less than that on its own. 

 
I don't know how ESPN's deal with Sling works but, if it's on a contract with an expiration date and ESPN is thinking about direct-selling, I'd be willing to bet Sling's price will go up if they renew with ESPN. But, again, I don't know how their deal is structured and could be way off base.

 
Finally got the restaurant antenna situation fine-tuned.

Put in an outdoor Clearstream 2 instead of an old roottop antenna. Initially, there wasn't much difference. But cutting out about 35 feet of coax cable made a huge difference. Previous set-up was rooftop antenna through 50 ft. R6 coax to a splitter. Then 4 feet to TV1 and 25 feet to TV2. Before, I'd usually get about 19 channels to TV1 and 15-16 to TV2. For both CBS, NBC, and ION were very poor quality. A lot of pixelation and some total dropouts. Cutting the 50 footer down to 15 brought 22 channels to both TVs with very rare pixelation and no dropouts. 

BTW, if you need a good tool for cutting down coax cable, the Harber Freight compression tool  is the ####. That and a razor blade is all that's needed to cut a cable and put in a new F-connector that isn't going anywhere (also comes with 6 F-connectors).

Other things I learned in the process: R6 instead of R59 seems to help. Keeping the cable away from metal and other motors helps. If you are down in a valley, those damn signals can bounce all over the place, and pointing directly towards the towers might not always give you the best signal. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top