Points taken.

As smart tvs have similar software to Android tablets I can't see the
point of streaming to them now.

Tony

On 14/10/2021 09:15, Andy Burns wrote:
> Tony Gamble wrote:
>
>> But not what I found when I tried to run a 4k film stream from my
>> Galaxy tablet to my OLED yesterday evening.
>>
>> It stuttered.
>
> I find that WiDi or MiraCast from laptops to TVs is far too stuttery to
> be bearable, even making the initial connection is not reliable.
>
> But anything from a phone/tablet to chromecast device tells the device
> to fetch its own stream from the source ... indeed you can reboot or
> turn off the phone once it's started the stream.
>
>> I ran it from my Nvidia Shield and it was perfect.
>

On 13/10/2021 16:08, critcher wrote:
>
>
> Future problems could consist of broadband being over used with
> stuttering etc, imagine every house using BB and watching tv and
> computer games and ps5 or xbox

On 13/10/2021 18:05, Tony Gamble wrote:
> Is this post suggesting that they will simply abandon their satellite?
>
> I cannot imagine the internet structure of the UK could cope with every
> single Sky viewer using it.

Why would this be a problem?

When we moved here we had 5Mb, and this was rumoured to be the best in
the village.

As of Monday I'll have 150Mb (or possibly nothing at all until they make
it work!).

The internet infrastructure in the UK is improving.

Andy

"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sk6fqc$m0s$1@dont-email.me...
> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 13/10/2021 10:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:13:03 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> so if you are in the set of people who regularly watches TV on these
>>>>> channels you will be forced to attach an add on box to receiving them
>>>>>
>>>>> so much for reducing clutter
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has and an aerial socket and DVB-T tuner.
>>>
>>> Young people often don't bother with these things at all. One of my
>>> granddaughters at university didn't even try to use an aerial with her
>>> TV there, and I uderstand this is the usual way now. Either an Amazon
>>> stick or the built-in internet features of the TV are enough. They'll
>>> use the college wi-fi or "cast" things from their phones (whatever
>>> that means) to put them on the bigger screen. Freeview is for oldies.
>>
>> Yes, what does "cast" mean? I get the impression that you are
>> watching/listening to something on your phone, tap something and it
>> appears on a big screen (or possibly you hear it on your hi-fi if audio
>> casting is still available), but you can still control it from your
>> phone.
>>
>> Is the stuff being beamed from you phone to the TV via Wi-Fi? Or are you
>> instructing the TV to get the material from the same source
>> (Internet/NAS drive)?
>>
>> (I can't find a concise definition on the Internet.)
>>
> Both. You can either mirror your phone’s screen (obvious issues) or cast
> in
> the proper sense. In that instance the phone sends info to your chrome
> cast
> (other dongles available) about where the stream resides and the dongle
> picks the stream up from the source directly via its own Internet
> connection. The phone can still control the display (pause, rewind etc)

where does it say that the user has a chrome cast device (whatever that is)

I can cast directly to my TV, in theory.

"Tony Gamble" <tonygamble@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:isohumFtck4U2@mid.individual.net...
> Is this post suggesting that they will simply abandon their satellite?
>
> I cannot imagine the internet structure of the UK could cope with every
> single Sky viewer using it.

me neither

TPTB (you know, the people who think that hash tags are "technology") think
otherwise

tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sk6fqc$m0s$1@dont-email.me...
>> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> On 13/10/2021 10:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:13:03 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> so if you are in the set of people who regularly watches TV on these
>>>>>> channels you will be forced to attach an add on box to receiving them
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so much for reducing clutter
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It has and an aerial socket and DVB-T tuner.
>>>>
>>>> Young people often don't bother with these things at all. One of my
>>>> granddaughters at university didn't even try to use an aerial with her
>>>> TV there, and I uderstand this is the usual way now. Either an Amazon
>>>> stick or the built-in internet features of the TV are enough. They'll
>>>> use the college wi-fi or "cast" things from their phones (whatever
>>>> that means) to put them on the bigger screen. Freeview is for oldies.
>>>
>>> Yes, what does "cast" mean? I get the impression that you are
>>> watching/listening to something on your phone, tap something and it
>>> appears on a big screen (or possibly you hear it on your hi-fi if audio
>>> casting is still available), but you can still control it from your
>>> phone.
>>>
>>> Is the stuff being beamed from you phone to the TV via Wi-Fi? Or are you
>>> instructing the TV to get the material from the same source
>>> (Internet/NAS drive)?
>>>
>>> (I can't find a concise definition on the Internet.)
>>>
>> Both. You can either mirror your phone’s screen (obvious issues) or cast
>> in
>> the proper sense. In that instance the phone sends info to your chrome
>> cast
>> (other dongles available) about where the stream resides and the dongle
>> picks the stream up from the source directly via its own Internet
>> connection. The phone can still control the display (pause, rewind etc)
>
> where does it say that the user has a chrome cast device (whatever that is)
>
> I can cast directly to my TV, in theory.
>
I did say other dongles available. In your case integrated into the TV.

tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Tony Gamble" <tonygamble@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:isohumFtck4U2@mid.individual.net...
>> Is this post suggesting that they will simply abandon their satellite?
>>
>> I cannot imagine the internet structure of the UK could cope with every
>> single Sky viewer using it.
>
>
> me neither
>
> TPTB (you know, the people who think that hash tags are "technology") think
> otherwise
>
>
>
Be more imaginative. Who would have thought a few years ago that you could
pick up on demand streams of a vast number of programmes? Not too long ago
I thought it a miracle that any sort of video could come via the Internet.
Within a decade the vast majority of homes will be connected to proper
fibre to the home Internet. Since I moved to Sky Q the other week from Sky
plus probably half of our viewing comes via the Internet rather than the
dish.

I bet in the late 1960s there was a bunch of folk who sat there grumbling
that this new fangled colour tv was both unnecessary and would never catch
on…..

In article <skgkiu$1t5$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Tony Gamble" <tonygamble@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> > news:isohumFtck4U2@mid.individual.net...
> >> Is this post suggesting that they will simply abandon their satellite?
> >>
> >> I cannot imagine the internet structure of the UK could cope with every
> >> single Sky viewer using it.
> >
> >
> > me neither
> >
> > TPTB (you know, the people who think that hash tags are "technology") think
> > otherwise
> >
> >
> >
> Be more imaginative. Who would have thought a few years ago that you could
> pick up on demand streams of a vast number of programmes? Not too long ago
> I thought it a miracle that any sort of video could come via the Internet.
> Within a decade the vast majority of homes will be connected to proper
> fibre to the home Internet. Since I moved to Sky Q the other week from Sky
> plus probably half of our viewing comes via the Internet rather than the
> dish.

> I bet in the late 1960s there was a bunch of folk who sat there grumbling
> that this new fangled colour tv was both unnecessary and would never catch
> onŒ..

There were.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 17/10/2021 08:49, Tweed wrote:
> I bet in the late 1960s there was a bunch of folk who sat there grumbling
> that this new fangled colour tv was both unnecessary and would never catch
> on…..

Some said it was technically impossible.

Bill

On 17/10/2021 08:49, Tweed wrote:

> I bet in the late 1960s there was a bunch of folk who sat there grumbling
> that this new fangled colour tv was both unnecessary and would never catch
> on…..
>

I didn't grumble about it, but as a colour-blind person who could tell
the colours of the snooker balls by the shade of grey, I couldn't see
the point of it - until I married someone who wasn't colour-blind and
insisted my monochrome TV wasn't good enough.

There is nothing like a good nag to make the higher price of a colour
licence look worthwhile ;-)

Jim