A Friend wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>It depends on what you have. If you are using a converter box then
>>>yes, you will need a new one that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. If
>>>you have an older TV then you will either need a new TV or a converter
>>>box that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. Many of the newer TVs
>>>(especially those in the $500 and up range) already understand the
>>>ATSC 3.0 format and so don't need any additional equipment.

>>>To show just how early on in the process we are some broadcast
>>>stations have started to encrypt their signal.

>>Shit

>>Years ago, FCC cracked down on pay analogue tv that scrambled its
>>signal. I thought that's disallowed on broadcast.

>It is. Broadcast signals carried on the public airwaves are required
>to be in a format that can be received by anybody.

>In the '70s and '80s, some stations began selling their overnight time
>to syndicators who offered PPV movies and concerts. The picture was
>scrambled; the sound came through fine. The idea didn't catch on.

There were two competing nationwide services. Wasn't one called OnTV?
But one of the channels in Chicago, WSNS Channel 44, was 24 hours a
day. FCC sued and prevailed.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 May 2023 02:29:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>. . .
>>
>>>It depends on what you have. If you are using a converter box then
>>>yes, you will need a new one that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. If
>>>you have an older TV then you will either need a new TV or a converter
>>>box that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. Many of the newer TVs
>>>(especially those in the $500 and up range) already understand the
>>>ATSC 3.0 format and so don't need any additional equipment.
>>
>>>To show just how early on in the process we are some broadcast
>>>stations have started to encrypt their signal.
>>
>>Shit
>>
>>Years ago, FCC cracked down on pay analogue tv that scrambled its
>>signal. I thought that's disallowed on broadcast.
>>
>>>They say it's to prevent the IP broadcasting of their signal where by
>>>someone multicasts the TV channel to many people around the Internet.
>>
>>Why do they care where their viewers are?
>
>I think the problem is the studios are afraid of people stealing their
>content so the stations are worried about either being sued for
>enabling the theft or finding it harder to get content if they don't
>encrypt the signal. That's just a guess on my part as I haven't seen a
>good explanation for why they are doing it.
>
>>>The current converters on the market can't handle encryption so the people
>>>in those markets are out of luck for now. Luckily they are updating
>>>their firmware this summer so the boxes will be able to handle
>>>encryption and the stations say they will be providing the keys so
>>>everyone with a converter box should be able to get the channels.
>>
>>Uh huh. 3.0 promised targeted advertising to individuals. I think they
>>are lying about their motives.
>>
>>>. . .
>
>There are definitely some people who want to make money off encrypted
>signals. Imagine being able to charge to see the latest movie and just
>watching it from an OTA signal. No need to be paying for cable or
>satellite. I think that's their thought and may be why some stations
>are testing encryption.

Targeted advertising, based on your demographics or personal
characteristics or actual personal information. It has political
implications. It's creepy as hell.

If they distribute decryption devices, then they are able to target you
directly.

A Friend wrote:
>Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:

>>Nyssa, who remembers when you needed to have a UHF
>>converter box to get the channels over 13 in the
>>really olden TV days

>Oh, yes. There were public service ads about them, but nobody ever got
>one.

>TVs weren't required to have UHF tuners until the 1965 model year, I
>think it was. We got a set in 1966 that had one; there were only two
>UHF stations available locally, and one of them was all-Spanish.

FCC failed to understand the economics of how they had divided VHF as it
was FCC that created the CBS-NBC two-network duopoly with DuMont and ABC
struggling to become the third network.

UHF was ready in the early '50s, so the decision should have been made
earlier.

I don't understand how FCC mandated UHF tuners as they did not regulate
consumer electronics beyonds requirements to shield electronic
emissions. In future, when FCC tried to regulate consumer equipment,
they got shot down in court.

There were two choices for more television options: make UHF available
earlier, or set up six nationwide networks on VHF, which is actually
what ABC assumed was going to happen and the reason why they grabbed the
frequency for Channel 7 in as many markets as possible.

Ironic that they gave up the channel position everywhere with digital.
That portion of VHF wasn't sold off for non-tv purposes.

Before everyone says, It's still channel 7! that's a virtual channel
position mapped to a different frequency band.

shawn wrote:

> On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:29:15 -0400, Nyssa
> <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>
>>shawn wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:09:43 -0700, anim8rfsk
>>> <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>>>> shawn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:27:01 -0500, super70s
>>>>>> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <rpmn6i1ls4dvp328kmtcf2dd4rtltfghce@4ax.com>, shawn
>>>>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>
>>But will that require a different converter box once
>>the 3.0 standard does make an appearance?
>>
>>In the same vein, would current TV sets be compatible,
>>or would *those* need a converter?
>
> It depends on what you have. If you are using a converter
> box then yes, you will need a new one that understands the
> ATSC 3.0 format. If you have an older TV then you will
> either need a new TV or a converter box that understands
> the ATSC 3.0 format. Many of the newer TVs (especially
> those in the $500 and up range) already understand the
> ATSC 3.0 format and so don't need any additional
> equipment.
>
> To show just how early on in the process we are some
> broadcast stations have started to encrypt their signal.
> They say it's to prevent the IP broadcasting of their
> signal where by someone multicasts the TV channel to many
> people around the Internet. The current converters on the
> market can't handle encryption so the people in those
> markets are out of luck for now. Luckily they are updating
> their firmware this summer so the boxes will be able to
> handle encryption and the stations say they will be
> providing the keys so everyone with a converter box should
> be able to get the channels.
>
> It's just one of those things that happen early in the
> process of rolling out a new system.
>>It's probably a moot point since I doubt either of
>>my semi-local markets would be quick to jump on the
>>3.0 bandwagon anyway.
>>
>>Nyssa, who remembers when you needed to have a UHF
>>converter box to get the channels over 13 in the
>>really olden TV days

Thanks for the info.

Since my TVs are last-century SD CRT models, I'd need
new converters. But since I doubt either market I'm
stuck in between will bite on the 3.0 anytime soon, I'll
just punt and do what I've been doing...not getting much
of anything OTA.

Nyssa, who just ordered two seasons of Perry Mason (old
version) on DVD, so will have something to watch even
if all broadcasters switch to some format she can't
receive anyway

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> A Friend wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> . . .
>
>>>> It depends on what you have. If you are using a converter box then
>>>> yes, you will need a new one that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. If
>>>> you have an older TV then you will either need a new TV or a converter
>>>> box that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. Many of the newer TVs
>>>> (especially those in the $500 and up range) already understand the
>>>> ATSC 3.0 format and so don't need any additional equipment.
>
>>>> To show just how early on in the process we are some broadcast
>>>> stations have started to encrypt their signal.
>
>>> Shit
>
>>> Years ago, FCC cracked down on pay analogue tv that scrambled its
>>> signal. I thought that's disallowed on broadcast.
>
>> It is. Broadcast signals carried on the public airwaves are required
>> to be in a format that can be received by anybody.
>
>> In the '70s and '80s, some stations began selling their overnight time
>> to syndicators who offered PPV movies and concerts. The picture was
>> scrambled; the sound came through fine. The idea didn't catch on.
>
> There were two competing nationwide services. Wasn't one called OnTV?
> But one of the channels in Chicago, WSNS Channel 44, was 24 hours a
> day. FCC sued and prevailed.
>

On TV used one of those circular hoop antennas on the back of your set with
a little decoder box. One channel, it came on about 5 PM and was only on at
night. During the day, it was an existing religious channel. I did their
ads for them when they first moved here from Sandy Eggo. The people that
ran the place here were completely bugfuck crazy and evil.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>It depends on what you have. If you are using a converter box then
>>>>>yes, you will need a new one that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. If
>>>>>you have an older TV then you will either need a new TV or a converter
>>>>>box that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. Many of the newer TVs
>>>>>(especially those in the $500 and up range) already understand the
>>>>>ATSC 3.0 format and so don't need any additional equipment.

>>>>>To show just how early on in the process we are some broadcast
>>>>>stations have started to encrypt their signal.

>>>>Shit

>>>>Years ago, FCC cracked down on pay analogue tv that scrambled its
>>>>signal. I thought that's disallowed on broadcast.

>>>It is. Broadcast signals carried on the public airwaves are required
>>>to be in a format that can be received by anybody.

>>>In the '70s and '80s, some stations began selling their overnight time
>>>to syndicators who offered PPV movies and concerts. The picture was
>>>scrambled; the sound came through fine. The idea didn't catch on.

>>There were two competing nationwide services. Wasn't one called OnTV?
>>But one of the channels in Chicago, WSNS Channel 44, was 24 hours a
>>day. FCC sued and prevailed.

>On TV used one of those circular hoop antennas on the back of your set with
>a little decoder box. One channel, it came on about 5 PM and was only on at
>night. During the day, it was an existing religious channel. I did their
>ads for them when they first moved here from Sandy Eggo. The people that
>ran the place here were completely bugfuck crazy and evil.

Interesting

I looked up WSNS. I think I'm still right that WSNS was subscription 24
hours a day. ON TV had 49% ownership of the license. It may have been
brokered time overnight on affiliates overnight that they had no
ownership stake in. WSNS was the very last station in the ON TV network.

FCC did not sue. Instead, the challenge was at license renewal time,
since the argument against renewing the license was that there had been
zero public affairs programming during the years in which the signal
was scrambled. The administrative law judge recommended against them but the
full FCC upheld the license renewal. By that time, they had been
offering Spanish-language programming and had local support.

The license would become a Telemundo O&O.

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:46:14 PM UTC-4, shawn wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:35:54 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Cable Company is Shutting Down Its TV Service & Replacing it With YouTube
> >> Luke Bouma May 15, 2023
> >> https://cordcuttersnews.com/one-more-cable-tv-company-is-shutting-down-its-tv-service-replacing-it-with-youtube-tv/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Today the cable TV company WOW! announced a deal with YouTube TV to
> >> replace its cable TV service with YouTube TV. WOW! says it will start
> >> moving its remaining TV customers to YouTube TV this summer. It will also
> >> start selling YouTube TV to new customers now.
> >>
> >> This news comes as multiple cable TV companies, including Frontier, have
> >> stopped offering traditional cable TV and gone streaming online. Frontier
> >> has, for some time now, offered YouTube TV instead of its traditional TV service.
> >>
> >> Increasingly a growing number of cable TV companies are deciding TV is
> >> just not profitable enough. Now they are turning to streaming options so
> >> they can focus on internet and other services.
> >>
> >
> >This is what Ob Veeus has been doing (through Roku), including a virtual
> >cloud DVR on the YouTube, and trying to talk me into. Robin’s doing
> >something similar as well.
> If you've got reliable Internet service it's not a bad deal. Hell,
> with AT&T Uverse I essentially had the same thing since they did all
> of their TV service as IPTV. So it was all streamed as IP and then
> routed through my cable modem to the TV settop. I could even bring
> up the admin screen on the cable modem and see how much bandwidth
> the TV streams were using, error rates and other info.
>
> Not that the Internet service and TV service interfered with each
> other as they were effectively separate on the fiber so I could watch
> TV and still have full use of my Internet service. Not so if you are
> using something like Youtube TV as it will be using part of your
> available bandwidth. Not an issue if you have gigabit service but
> could be an issue if you are using 50Megabit service where some start
> out.

So are you still satisfied with U-Verse? I ask because that's the service I currently have.
BTW, did you know that U-Verse is a "grandfathered" service? AT&T is no longer
offering it. So if you ever disconnect the service, or move, you can never get U-Verse again.

Irish Mike

On Wed, 24 May 2023 08:35:05 -0700 (PDT), Irish Mike
<irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:46:14?PM UTC-4, shawn wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:35:54 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>> >chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Cable Company is Shutting Down Its TV Service & Replacing it With YouTube
>> >> Luke Bouma May 15, 2023
>> >> https://cordcuttersnews.com/one-more-cable-tv-company-is-shutting-down-its-tv-service-replacing-it-with-youtube-tv/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Today the cable TV company WOW! announced a deal with YouTube TV to
>> >> replace its cable TV service with YouTube TV. WOW! says it will start
>> >> moving its remaining TV customers to YouTube TV this summer. It will also
>> >> start selling YouTube TV to new customers now.
>> >>
>> >> This news comes as multiple cable TV companies, including Frontier, have
>> >> stopped offering traditional cable TV and gone streaming online. Frontier
>> >> has, for some time now, offered YouTube TV instead of its traditional TV service.
>> >>
>> >> Increasingly a growing number of cable TV companies are deciding TV is
>> >> just not profitable enough. Now they are turning to streaming options so
>> >> they can focus on internet and other services.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This is what Ob Veeus has been doing (through Roku), including a virtual
>> >cloud DVR on the YouTube, and trying to talk me into. Robin’s doing
>> >something similar as well.
>> If you've got reliable Internet service it's not a bad deal. Hell,
>> with AT&T Uverse I essentially had the same thing since they did all
>> of their TV service as IPTV. So it was all streamed as IP and then
>> routed through my cable modem to the TV settop. I could even bring
>> up the admin screen on the cable modem and see how much bandwidth
>> the TV streams were using, error rates and other info.
>>
>> Not that the Internet service and TV service interfered with each
>> other as they were effectively separate on the fiber so I could watch
>> TV and still have full use of my Internet service. Not so if you are
>> using something like Youtube TV as it will be using part of your
>> available bandwidth. Not an issue if you have gigabit service but
>> could be an issue if you are using 50Megabit service where some start
>> out.
>
>So are you still satisfied with U-Verse? I ask because that's the service I currently have.
>BTW, did you know that U-Verse is a "grandfathered" service? AT&T is no longer
>offering it. So if you ever disconnect the service, or move, you can never get U-Verse again.
>
Yes, I am quite aware of it being a "grand fathered" service as AT&T
decided to cut their TV service offering. Not sure what that means as
people eventually leave over time. Imagine being the sole person with
the service in a city? What sort of upkeep will they provide at that
point?

Overall I've been okay with the U-verse. I'm happier with the Internet
service giving that they have a good price and don't have any monthly
bandwidth limit. Which makes it a better option than Comcast. Though
Comcast did start having special offers a year or two ago with locked
in prices and no monthly bandwidth limits. Though the offer never
showed up on their web pages so they clearly didn't want everyone to
get the specials.

On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:00:04 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>Yes, I am quite aware of it being a "grand fathered" service as AT&T
>decided to cut their TV service offering. Not sure what that means as
>people eventually leave over time. Imagine being the sole person with
>the service in a city? What sort of upkeep will they provide at that
>point?

My mother in law had a 'party line' until about 4 years ago and for
the previous 10-15 years hadn't had anybody else on it.

She's 86 years old and still chugging along...

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:00:04 -0400, shawn
> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I am quite aware of it being a "grand fathered" service as AT&T
>> decided to cut their TV service offering. Not sure what that means as
>> people eventually leave over time. Imagine being the sole person with
>> the service in a city? What sort of upkeep will they provide at that
>> point?
>
> My mother in law had a 'party line' until about 4 years ago and for
> the previous 10-15 years hadn't had anybody else on it.
>
> She's 86 years old and still chugging along...
>

You go, girl!

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 5/24/2023 7:27 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> A Friend wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> . . .
>>
>>>>> It depends on what you have. If you are using a converter box then
>>>>> yes, you will need a new one that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. If
>>>>> you have an older TV then you will either need a new TV or a converter
>>>>> box that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. Many of the newer TVs
>>>>> (especially those in the $500 and up range) already understand the
>>>>> ATSC 3.0 format and so don't need any additional equipment.
>>
>>>>> To show just how early on in the process we are some broadcast
>>>>> stations have started to encrypt their signal.
>>
>>>> Shit
>>
>>>> Years ago, FCC cracked down on pay analogue tv that scrambled its
>>>> signal. I thought that's disallowed on broadcast.
>>
>>> It is. Broadcast signals carried on the public airwaves are required
>>> to be in a format that can be received by anybody.
>>
>>> In the '70s and '80s, some stations began selling their overnight time
>>> to syndicators who offered PPV movies and concerts. The picture was
>>> scrambled; the sound came through fine. The idea didn't catch on.
>>
>> There were two competing nationwide services. Wasn't one called OnTV?
>> But one of the channels in Chicago, WSNS Channel 44, was 24 hours a
>> day. FCC sued and prevailed.
>>
>
> On TV used one of those circular hoop antennas on the back of your set with
> a little decoder box. One channel, it came on about 5 PM and was only on at
> night. During the day, it was an existing religious channel. I did their
> ads for them when they first moved here from Sandy Eggo. The people that
> ran the place here were completely bugfuck crazy and evil.
>
Did they pay in full on time?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 5/24/2023 7:27 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> A Friend wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>>>> It depends on what you have. If you are using a converter box then
>>>>>> yes, you will need a new one that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. If
>>>>>> you have an older TV then you will either need a new TV or a converter
>>>>>> box that understands the ATSC 3.0 format. Many of the newer TVs
>>>>>> (especially those in the $500 and up range) already understand the
>>>>>> ATSC 3.0 format and so don't need any additional equipment.
>>>
>>>>>> To show just how early on in the process we are some broadcast
>>>>>> stations have started to encrypt their signal.
>>>
>>>>> Shit
>>>
>>>>> Years ago, FCC cracked down on pay analogue tv that scrambled its
>>>>> signal. I thought that's disallowed on broadcast.
>>>
>>>> It is. Broadcast signals carried on the public airwaves are required
>>>> to be in a format that can be received by anybody.
>>>
>>>> In the '70s and '80s, some stations began selling their overnight time
>>>> to syndicators who offered PPV movies and concerts. The picture was
>>>> scrambled; the sound came through fine. The idea didn't catch on.
>>>
>>> There were two competing nationwide services. Wasn't one called OnTV?
>>> But one of the channels in Chicago, WSNS Channel 44, was 24 hours a
>>> day. FCC sued and prevailed.
>>>
>>
>> On TV used one of those circular hoop antennas on the back of your set with
>> a little decoder box. One channel, it came on about 5 PM and was only on at
>> night. During the day, it was an existing religious channel. I did their
>> ads for them when they first moved here from Sandy Eggo. The people that
>> ran the place here were completely bugfuck crazy and evil.
>>
> Did they pay in full on time?
>

They made me do the work over the weekend as an emergency and then took a
week to send somebody over to pick it up. When they did I wasn’t there and
have left it at the front desk marked COD. They called and screamed at our
receptionist so badly she almost quit.

These are the kind of people that tell you they want you to book the whole
next week open in case they want something done on a whim and it’s only a
$40 job.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Wed, 24 May 2023 14:34:20 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:00:04 -0400, shawn
>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I am quite aware of it being a "grand fathered" service as AT&T
>>> decided to cut their TV service offering. Not sure what that means as
>>> people eventually leave over time. Imagine being the sole person with
>>> the service in a city? What sort of upkeep will they provide at that
>>> point?
>>
>> My mother in law had a 'party line' until about 4 years ago and for
>> the previous 10-15 years hadn't had anybody else on it.
>>
>> She's 86 years old and still chugging along...
>>
>
>You go, girl!

Yes she does. Unfortunately her daughter only made it to 65....it's
been 14 months now.

On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:11:48 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>They made me do the work over the weekend as an emergency and then took a
>week to send somebody over to pick it up. When they did I wasn’t there and
>have left it at the front desk marked COD. They called and screamed at our
>receptionist so badly she almost quit.
>
>These are the kind of people that tell you they want you to book the whole
>next week open in case they want something done on a whim and it’s only a
>$40 job.

Sounds like you need to make really good friends with your sales staff
to encourage them to bring in new customers.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>On 5/24/2023 7:27 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>On TV used one of those circular hoop antennas on the back of your set with
>>>a little decoder box. One channel, it came on about 5 PM and was only on at
>>>night. During the day, it was an existing religious channel. I did their
>>>ads for them when they first moved here from Sandy Eggo. The people that
>>>ran the place here were completely bugfuck crazy and evil.

>>Did they pay in full on time?

>They made me do the work over the weekend as an emergency and then took a
>week to send somebody over to pick it up. When they did I wasn’t there and
>have left it at the front desk marked COD. They called and screamed at our
>receptionist so badly she almost quit.

She should have called police.

>. . .

On 5/24/23 10:35 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:46:14 PM UTC-4, shawn wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:35:54 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Cable Company is Shutting Down Its TV Service & Replacing it With YouTube
>>>> Luke Bouma May 15, 2023
>>>> https://cordcuttersnews.com/one-more-cable-tv-company-is-shutting-down-its-tv-service-replacing-it-with-youtube-tv/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today the cable TV company WOW! announced a deal with YouTube TV to
>>>> replace its cable TV service with YouTube TV. WOW! says it will start
>>>> moving its remaining TV customers to YouTube TV this summer. It will also
>>>> start selling YouTube TV to new customers now.
>>>>
>>>> This news comes as multiple cable TV companies, including Frontier, have
>>>> stopped offering traditional cable TV and gone streaming online. Frontier
>>>> has, for some time now, offered YouTube TV instead of its traditional TV service.
>>>>
>>>> Increasingly a growing number of cable TV companies are deciding TV is
>>>> just not profitable enough. Now they are turning to streaming options so
>>>> they can focus on internet and other services.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is what Ob Veeus has been doing (through Roku), including a virtual
>>> cloud DVR on the YouTube, and trying to talk me into. Robin’s doing
>>> something similar as well.
>> If you've got reliable Internet service it's not a bad deal. Hell,
>> with AT&T Uverse I essentially had the same thing since they did all
>> of their TV service as IPTV. So it was all streamed as IP and then
>> routed through my cable modem to the TV settop. I could even bring
>> up the admin screen on the cable modem and see how much bandwidth
>> the TV streams were using, error rates and other info.
>>
>> Not that the Internet service and TV service interfered with each
>> other as they were effectively separate on the fiber so I could watch
>> TV and still have full use of my Internet service. Not so if you are
>> using something like Youtube TV as it will be using part of your
>> available bandwidth. Not an issue if you have gigabit service but
>> could be an issue if you are using 50Megabit service where some start
>> out.
>
> So are you still satisfied with U-Verse? I ask because that's the service I currently have.
> BTW, did you know that U-Verse is a "grandfathered" service? AT&T is no longer
> offering it. So if you ever disconnect the service, or move, you can never get U-Verse again.
>
> Irish Mike

Hi Oath Keeper Twat.