Comcast could dump Big Ten Network

[fsg2_rivals]

I think you still need to have it as part of your tv package to do that. I'm not sure if the BTN has a stand alone streaming service that doesn't require that though.

Pretty much the other large streaming services have it though outside of Sling TV. YoutubeTV, Hulu, Direct TV now and Sony Vue. For two of them you have to upgrade to the second lowest package at 50/month but Youtube and Hulu have it in their only offering at 40/month.

yeah, you need to log in with a content provider to watch football games on btn2go - cable, satellite or streaming service. The paid BTN Plus service runs non-televised games only, which means no football.

had heard rumors of a standalone BTN subscription a couple years ago but never came to fruition.

If this comcast thing goes south, they should get it up asap. F comcast. figure comcast will use its post-NN powers to throttle BTN streaming in that case?

 

[Upstream]

As posted above Youtube TV 40/month, Hulu 40 month, DirectTV now 2nd lowest package 50/month, Sony Vue 50/month. I suggested earlier if I had Comcast, I'd get one of them for a few month so 120-150 bucks and then cancel at the end of the season. If I happen to like my sampling might just quit their tv completely.

As to the comparisons of one to another I can't comment on that as I've never had any of them. Others here who have the services can chime in.

Thanks. I guess at $40 per month, YouTube or Hulu are the most cost effective options. I'll see if anyone else provides info on advantages of one vs the other, or why Directv or Sony would be worth an extra $10 per month.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Thanks. I guess at $40 per month, YouTube or Hulu are the most cost effective options. I'll see if anyone else provides info on advantages of one vs the other, or why Directv or Sony would be worth an extra $10 per month.

This articles breaks them down: https://flixed.io/how-to-watch-big-ten-network-without-cable/

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Sony Vue is fine, but considering switching based on lower cost of others. Cost and channel lineup are really my driving considerations so will have to see what channels are lost.

BTN, ESPN and other CFB carriers are the main things I care about, anyway. Mostly watch all Netflix/Prime/MLB.TV outside those. No use for a big tv channel lineup anymore.

 

[mildone_rivals]

figure comcast will use its post-NN powers to throttle BTN streaming in that case?

The telecoms didn't spend all that money on lobbying and propaganda to eliminate Title II from NN for no reason. No doubt they have plans for slowly moving us all over to packaged content plans, and then ultimately to negotiated carrier agreements with content providers.

But they aren't dumb. It will be slowly phased in with relatively harmless changes until everybody gradually gets used to the telecoms new role as content filter for the internet. And people will simply accept it, much in the same way they've accepted it with cable TV.

I wouldn't be surprised if certain things, like eliminating BTN, or placing BTN in a premium sports package tier, along with the internet-enabled ESPN, FOX and NBC sports streams, might happen earlier rather than later. Although that risks keeping public ire alive over the loss of Title II in NN.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

You're probably right, but telecoms are notoriously arrogant, dumb and negligent when it comes to public/customer relations. i wouldn't put anything past them.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

OK I can see the problem with Comcast or Verizon filtering what you can see on the internet. Not sure that's really a possibility due to the public outrage that would ensue but these days who knows.

cable bills used to be less than $10 mo. now just the cable portion is more like $80 mo plus. (and they weren't raking in the money even at less than $10 mo).

with the help of the GOP, (and some Dems), cable forces you to rent your channel "tuners" and your recording devices from them at ridiculous prices for inferior equipment. (remember that "cable ready" tv, vcr, or dvr, pre being forced to rent).

if you want just cable/video, or just internet, or just phone, you're forced to subsidize all those taking multiple services from said provider.

you're forced to pay an inflated price, (vs a price that was already inflated to begin with), if you don't sign a 1 or 2 yr contract for what's essentially a utility.

you're forced to buy a huge bundle of channels even if you want just a few, which not only forces you to pay for things you don't want, but also to have to pay far more per channel for those you do want.

big cable actually bribed many state legislatures into making community owned cable and internet systems illegal, to kill competition.

cable bribes regulators and legislators to kill net neutrality and title II classification.

i could go on.

where was the outrage preventing these abuses?


cable/big telecom outright owns or heavily funds CNN, MSNBC, NBC Universal, Fox News, C-SPAN, Yahoo, Disney/ABC, The CW, CBSSinclair and Tribune networks.

they also own and control the movie studios.

net neutrality and title II, 2 of the major issues of out time, barely got a mention on any news channel.

when you outright own or control the media, pretty easy to manage or squash "outrage", and lead the sheep down the path of what to and what not to be outraged about..

 

[ScarletDave]

I cut the cord starting this summer. Have just the channels I need, including BTN and all Fox sports and NBC sports. Best decision

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

Thanks. I guess at $40 per month, YouTube or Hulu are the most cost effective options. I'll see if anyone else provides info on advantages of one vs the other, or why Directv or Sony would be worth an extra $10 per month.

Just to update I noticed just since yesterday DirectTV Now has increased the price of their packages including the 2nd lowest one necessary to view BTN. It's now 55/month. Looked it up and seems like it was a planned increase set to go into effect today. YouTube TV and Sling had similar price hikes recently and they're following suit.

ln the end these guys will end up charging similar to regular traditional tv but the savings will come from the boxes you don't need and maybe eliminating some monthly fees.

I also have a question for those who do have these streaming services. Outside the monthly service do you guys pay any of the service fees? I see I have like 24 bucks in fees a month I pay some of which I think could be cut out like regional sports fee, fios tv broadcast fee, video franchise fee, etc... which is like 13 bucks/month in itself.

 

[SHUSource]

Two words: Customer Service.
Second: Comcast playing hardball keeping the Philly SportsNet channel off DirecTV for the last 20 years.
Third: Comcast is friggin evil. LOL

Yeah, I'm not arguing with you, but was just curious where you saw the distinction. I didn't even realize the boldest point was the case (I've never even considered Direct TV, so it wasn't on my radar), but this is the problem with cable providers also producing content. Consumers always lose in some way, even if it is a matter of keeping another network/provider's content off their system. Not good.

 

[RUScrew85]

Yeah, I'm not arguing with you, but was just curious where you saw the distinction. I didn't even realize the boldest point was the case (I've never even considered Direct TV, so it wasn't on my radar), but this is the problem with cable providers also producing content. Consumers always lose in some way, even if it is a matter of keeping another network/provider's content off their system. Not good.

No worries didn't think you were.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Cutting the cord will save you money today (short term), but in the end, it will all cost the same. The prices will keep creeping up, this has already started. Plus as more and more people cut the cord, the price for internet access will go up and things will slow down. We all know that even when a website gets too many hits, it shutdown. This happen to AMAZON for crying out loud. There is no way in hell we could ever watch the Superbowl without the feed cutting off.

In the meantime,I need BTN however, I don't care if they move it into a higher tier, I already have a higher tier.

 

[Plum Street]

I have comcast. Not going to sweat it for football. Can always go to a fellow RU fan house or a bar, since most bars have DIRECTV.
Basketball will be more difficult. Might be like the old days of listening on the radio.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Just to update I noticed just since yesterday DirectTV Now has increased the price of their packages including the 2nd lowest one necessary to view BTN. It's now 55/month. Looked it up and seems like it was a planned increase set to go into effect today. YouTube TV and Sling had similar price hikes recently and they're following suit.

ln the end these guys will end up charging similar to regular traditional tv but the savings will come from the boxes you don't need and maybe eliminating some monthly fees.

I also have a question for those who do have these streaming services. Outside the monthly service do you guys pay any of the service fees? I see I have like 24 bucks in fees a month I pay some of which I think could be cut out like regional sports fee, fios tv broadcast fee, video franchise fee, etc... which is like 13 bucks/month in itself.

No service fees. Flat fee every month.

Savings can also come from easy cancellation. Activate for football, deactivate immediately after. That's assuming you don't want it for other channels year round.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Cutting the cord will save you money today (short term), but in the end, it will all cost the same. The prices will keep creeping up, this has already started. Plus as more and more people cut the cord, the price for internet access will go up and things will slow down. We all know that even when a website gets too many hits, it shutdown. This happen to AMAZON for crying out loud. There is no way in hell we could ever watch the Superbowl without the feed cutting off.

In the meantime,I need BTN however, I don't care if they move it into a higher tier, I already have a higher tier.

not for me it won't. If they raise prices that much and get rid of easy cancelation, i'll strip back to one streaming service or get rid of it altogether.

that's how streaming will really save you $$$ ...by teaching you that paying hundreds for a huge lineup of channels was a stupid idea in the first place. never again.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

No service fees. Flat fee every month.

Savings can also come from easy cancellation. Activate for football, deactivate immediately after. That's assuming you don't want it for other channels year round.

Yea that was my suggestion if you can afford it. I have FIOS so I don't need but researching it and just talking about it so much here has me almost talking myself into trying it anyway just to see the functionality, reliability, stability and if it's actually an alternative for my use an if it is consider a switch. I'm not there yet but I feel tempted.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

not for me it won't. If they raise prices that much and get rid of easy cancelation, i'll strip back to one streaming service or get rid of it altogether.

that's how streaming will really save you $$$ ...by teaching you that paying hundreds for a huge lineup of channels was a stupid idea in the first place. never again.

But you have to compare the total costs vs total costs of each side. People aren't paying hundreds just for tv, it's for internet and sometimes phone too.

I have FIOS triple play and the tv portion of my bill is 55 bucks so in the vicinity of these streaming services and that's for the 2nd highest package and HBO/Showtime thrown in as well although I think those 2 could go when my contract is up. But that's a more apples to apples comparison. Add internet just like I have internet which is discounted for me and then a phone if you want that and then you have full apples to apples comparison between the 2 options.

Like I mentioned the main savings is the cable box fees and the service fees which aren't necessary at all. I'm spending just under 70/month for those 2 things and a large portion of it could be cut out with streaming. In the future though, would the big media/cable companies make up for it by charging more somewhere else if enough people switch to streaming? Very possibly.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

i do expect internet pricing to go up, but nowhere near enough that it'll be as expensive alone as a full cable bundle or a bundle of tv streaming + netflix. Especially not with 5g and other disruptions coming.

for me, the biggest value has been on gradually weening me off stupid amounts of tv and associated costs. quitting tv all together and finding something more constructive to do no longer sounds like an unthinkable proposition. In fact, as an ru fan, it'll mean a lot less frustration and heartache ; )

 

[Upstream]

But you have to compare the total costs vs total costs of each side. People aren't paying hundreds just for tv, it's for internet and sometimes phone too.

I have FIOS triple play and the tv portion of my bill is 55 bucks so in the vicinity of these streaming services and that's for the 2nd highest package and HBO/Showtime thrown in as well although I think those 2 could go when my contract is up. But that's a more apples to apples comparison. Add internet just like I have internet which is discounted for me and then a phone if you want that and then you have full apples to apples comparison between the 2 options.

Like I mentioned the main savings is the cable box fees and the service fees which aren't necessary at all. I'm spending just under 70/month for those 2 things and a large portion of it could be cut out with streaming. In the future though, would the big media/cable companies make up for it by charging more somewhere else if enough people switch to streaming? Very possibly.

Very true. When unbundling TV and Internet, you can't just look at the TV service cost. You need to look at the cost of TV, Internet (and phone if you have it). By the time you're done, the cost of unbundled TV might be comparable to the cost of bundled TV/Internet from your cable provider.

But the upside of unbundled TV is that you have options. If Comcast drops BTN, you easily switch to YouTube, and if YouTube drops BTN, you easily switch to Hulu. And instead of being locked into rental of a cable company set-top box, you get your choice between Firestick, or Chromecast, or Roku, or whatever you want.

The downside is that the user interfaces for those streaming devices is probably not as easy to use as your cable box. Also, you need to have fast reliable internet service, or deal with high compression rates.

For me, to actually drop Comcast and switch to streaming, I'd need to see a couple things:

• Reasonably-priced, reliable, high-speed internet. I don't know the cost of Comcast internet alone, so this may already exist. Plus within the next 18 months I expect to have the option of Verizon Fios.
• Improved user interfaces for streaming devices. Ultimately the user interface needs to be completely seamless: turn on the TV and press the channel button (or key in the channel number) to get to the channel you want. My Comcast box also has voice recognition, so I can say Rutgers Football into my remote to turn to BTN with the Rutgers game on. I've become used to this, so I'd like to see this (or Alexa integration) with my streaming device.
• Ability to easily DVR over-the-air channels, as easily as I can record local channels on my cable box. Ideally, the ability to record off an antenna and watch recordings even if my internet goes out (and, yes, that probably means local storage).

I don't think any of that is too far into the future. So it is really risky for Comcast to drop BTN and encourage me to try a streaming service. As others have said, I don't have a problem buying a $35 streaming box and paying $120 for 3 months of YouTubeTV, while keeping my Comcast service (though I'd probably drop to a lower Comcast package).

Comcast is already fighting a losing battle with people in their 20s and 30s cutting the cord. But I would assume that they don't want to give people in their 50s and 60s an incentive to try streaming services. Because even if we don't love streaming today, we might see the potential of where it can be in 2 years.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Much of roku is more intuitive than cable tuners, imo. Instead of scrolling hundreds of channels to see wtf is on (maybe nothing), you go right to your big, colorful app and choose what you want.

The tv content apps are admittedly clunky. But I use the dedicated BTN, ESPN, etc. apps whenever possible to avoid this.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

i do expect internet pricing to go up, but nowhere near enough that it'll be as expensive alone as a full cable bundle or a bundle of tv streaming + netflix. Especially not with 5g and other disruptions coming.

for me, the biggest value has been on gradually weening me off stupid amounts of tv and associated costs. quitting tv all together and finding something more constructive to do no longer sounds like an unthinkable proposition. In fact, as an ru fan, it'll mean a lot less frustration and heartache ; )

5G (high speed wireless) is something I've mentioned in the past that can actually bring about true cord cutting. Right now you're not really cutting anything because in the end you're still attached to your cable provider through their broadband service.

It's when you can truly abandon/switch from company to company that you've cut the cord just like you can switch your wireless providers now from ATT/Verizon/TMobile-Sprint. If high speed wireless into the home becomes as reliable and fast as wired broadband then you can have true competition across many markets not just 1-2 players more like 3-6 players in a market. Get an eccentric but envelope pushing CEO like TMobile's John Legere or Bezos type pushing margins to gain share and then you'll really have something similar to the way we saw TMobile and later Sprint push Verizon/ATT on unlimited minutes, texts and now data.

One caveat to that though is if the industry undergoes even more consolidation than we've already seen and that's always possible.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

Much of roku is more intuitive than cable tuners, imo. Instead of scrolling hundreds of channels to see wtf is on (maybe nothing), you go right to your big, colorful app and choose what you want.

The tv content apps are admittedly clunky. But I use the dedicated BTN, ESPN, etc. apps whenever possible to avoid this.

I saw video of what would be similar to channel surfing on youtube TV. Looked like you just scrolled through on the app just as you'd scroll through a guide on your tv. It reminded me a little of the FIOS TV app I have on my phone/iPad but don't use all that often. Not too bad. I like that it has unlimited DVR though but like Upstream above I have my dvr local which is something I prefer but could live without.

FIOS has something similar with Alexa but I haven't enabled that functionality. I don't see why youtube tv couldn't do the same with GoogleHome and Alexa as well some time in the future.

The idea of it it is just rattling in my head for now but like Upstream said above and I mentioned earlier, do you really want a 40 something like me or people older even tempted while generally content to leave things as is just remain in the inertia of it.

 

[Upstream]

5G (high speed wireless) is something I've mentioned in the past that can actually bring about true cord cutting. Right now you're not really cutting anything because in the end you're still attached to your cable provider through their broadband service.

It's when you can truly abandon/switch from company to company that you've cut the cord just like you can switch your wireless providers now from ATT/Verizon/TMobile-Sprint. If high speed wireless into the home becomes as reliable and fast as wired broadband then you can have true competition across many markets not just 1-2 players more like 3-6 players in a market. Get an eccentric but envelope pushing CEO like TMobile's John Legere or Bezos type pushing margins to gain share and then you'll really have something similar to the way we saw TMobile and later Sprint push Verizon/ATT on unlimited minutes, texts and now data.

One caveat to that though is if the industry undergoes even more consolidation than we've already seen and that's always possible.

You would need to have unlimited 5G data for all your home devices (or 4 a home wifi router) for a moderate cost. That's a very different model than the wireless telcos have now. Do you think they'd be willing to make that switch?

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

You would need to have unlimited 5G data for all your home devices (or 4 a home wifi router) for a moderate cost. That's a very different model than the wireless telcos have now. Do you think they'd be willing to make that switch?

I'm not as familiar with all the specifics and technology but I do think it will happen, not at the outset for the 5G rollouts projected around early 2020s but say 10-15 years down the line yes I think it will be an wireless high speed into home will be a legitimate alternative.

Here's a link to a Q&A with someone in the industry from a Forbes article and large excerpt I pasted from it.

Bennett: Mobile broadband is hampered by data caps today. Those have to increase for people to cut the cord on cable modem. Interestingly, T-Mobile raised their unlimited data caps yesterday from 32GB to 50 GB.

Rysavy: Agreed about the caps. Throttling is in place today so users don't experience congestion. Throttling addresses real capacity limitations. The result is that today, 4G LTE provides a much more consistent user experience than say, Wi-Fi at airports. But if the network has much greater capacity, operators can offer much larger plans. 5G in small cells with mmWave increases capacity by 100 times or more. So caps for 5G will be consistent with other fixed broadband, such as 1 TB per month.


Singer: Peter, what percentage of U.S. homes do you expect to switch to a pure wireless home Internet solution within (say) the next five years? Or the next ten years? And if it’s large, wouldn’t that represent a massive redistribution of spending from cable operators like Comcast and Charter and towards wireless operators like Verizon and AT&T?

Bennett: Pew says that’s already happening; peak wired broadband was like 3 years ago.

Beggs: Hal, your question assumes that cable operators don't get into wireless, either organically or via acquisition.

Rysavy: Within 5 years, 5G could support 50 million homes or more. With respect to redistributing spending, yes, if cellular operators can roll out the hundreds of thousands of small cells, the competitive landscape will shift in a major way.

Singer: But “could support” is different than actual penetration right? I'm trying to figure out how much wireless substitution we should expect.

Rysavy: I believe that eventually consumers will pay for just one broadband connection, fixed and mobile. When I say 50M or more homes, I mean wireless substitution. I think you can draw a parallel with local telephone service and long distance. The long distance business evaporated. Similarly, today's fixed and mobile broadband services will collapse into one. The cellular operators today are better positioned to take that market.

Beggs: But the cable operators are probably going to try to fight them.

Singer: So is it fair to say cable operators will be the "losers" from 5G and the telcos will be the "winners"? Or will cable also get into the act?

Rysavy: Cable operators will defend their business, but they don't have the massive mobile infrastructure that the cellular operators have. Cable operators face a serious threat from 5G. A dense 5G network will leapfrog over current cable coaxial networks in capability. So customers could see greater speeds and bigger buckets.

Bennett: Cable is learning about the wireless edge from their Wi-Fi experiments. With their massive backhaul, all they need is an edge. And don’t things get interesting if Spectrum (the former Charter and Time Warner Cable) buys T-Mobile?

Beggs: I worry about that merger because that likely would reduce competition and/or give Spectrum an incentive to hold back on what T-Mobile offers for fear of cannibalization.

Singer: Sticking with the competition theme, does the fact that 5G wireless will be provided by fiber to the home (FTTH) providers imply that those operators will be reluctant to deploy both technologies (FTTH and 5G) for fear of cannibalization?

Bennett: Once we have 5G, we don’t need FTTH. Look at how people use FiOS: the primary connection is Wi-Fi. I suspect we’ll have 5 to 8 5G options in cities and suburbs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/washin...ireless-kill-the-broadband-star/#458b29d8fd7f

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

...with the help of the GOP, (and some Dems), cable forces you to rent your channel "tuners" and your recording devices from them at ridiculous prices for inferior equipment. (remember that "cable ready" tv, vcr, or dvr, pre being forced to rent).

Don't kid yourself, both parties are in on protecting the cablecos/big content guys.

And regular folk from the whole political spectrum.. the smart ones.. want full NN and an end to games like this.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

Here's a reference to TMobile executives talking about being able to rollout 5G to compete with traditional cable. It sounds like they reversed course on that after the Sprint merger. I know Masa Son, CEO of Softbank (majority owner of Sprint) has been mentioning it since before his failed takeover attempt of TMobile a few years ago. Again don't think any time soon but 10-15 years or so I think it will be a legitimate alternative.


Excerpt from the article:

T-Mobile executives said that the company’s planned merger with Sprint would position the newly combined company to offer internet services to homes, offices and other locations—a move that would put the company into direct competition with the likes of Comcast, Charter, Verizon and other wired internet service providers.

Those statements are notable, considering T-Mobile executives for years have downplayed the opportunity for fixed wireless technology to replace wired internet connections.


During the company’s quarterly conference call today with analysts, T-Mobile’s Mike Sievert boasted of the wireless speeds that a combined Sprint and T-Mobile could provide through a combination of 5G technology running on spectrum bands including T-Mobile’s 600 MHz and Sprint’s 2.5 GHz. “That's going to 450 megabits per second within the planning horizon of this business,” he said. “That's a national average, not a place to get in some parts of some towns, like our competitors' millimeter-wave strategy that can go higher than that in very isolated places.”

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wire...e-fixed-wireless-following-sprint-merger-deal

 

[gmay8]

I’ve mentioned before how I’m awful at technology. If I subscribe to YoutubeTV for BTN if Comcast drops it, how do I get YoutubeTV on my actually tv? I have a smart tv, with a YouTube app, but didn’t see any YouTube tv app. Do I need a firestick thing to get it from my phone to my tv? Is it self explanatory and easy to do?

 

[Upstream]

I’ve mentioned before how I’m awful at technology. If I subscribe to YoutubeTV for BTN if Comcast drops it, how do I get YoutubeTV on my actually tv? I have a smart tv, with a YouTube app, but didn’t see any YouTube tv app. Do I need a firestick thing to get it from my phone to my tv? Is it self explanatory and easy to do?

You need a device. Some SmartTVs might have the YouTubeTV app built in. Otherwise you need an add-on device. https://tv.youtube.com/learn/devices/

Firestick currently does not support YouTubeTV.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

I’ve mentioned before how I’m awful at technology. If I subscribe to YoutubeTV for BTN if Comcast drops it, how do I get YoutubeTV on my actually tv? I have a smart tv, with a YouTube app, but didn’t see any YouTube tv app. Do I need a firestick thing to get it from my phone to my tv? Is it self explanatory and easy to do?

If your tv is 2016 samsung/LG or later it's possible you have the youtube TV app on it. It could be in the apps section of your tv. Even if it's an older tv check anyway who knows.

I don't think it should affect that but make sure you tv is connected to your home wifi and up to date with firmware etc..

Here's the list of devices where it's available. Check on the firestick I don't see that listed. Don't be intimidated it's not too hard. If you have to stream from your phone/pc/tablet to tv it's just about making your device "see" the small portable stick you put in the usb on your tv. It's not too difficult to get that done. If you happen to have an appletv (newer model) or xbox that's already connected to your tv the app is likely to be on those devices already.

https://tv.youtube.com/learn/devices/

 

[miketd1]

Eh, in my experience, if I manage to cut something out of the budget, we manage to blow the potential savings on something else in the discretionary spending bucket (eating out, movies, toys, etc.).

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

There is no YouTube TV app for the PS4, just a FYI.

 

[RUScrew85]

If your tv is 2016 samsung/LG or later it's possible you have the youtube TV app on it. It could be in the apps section of your tv. Even if it's an older tv check anyway who knows.

I don't think it should affect that but make sure you tv is connected to your home wifi and up to date with firmware etc..

Here's the list of devices where it's available. Check on the firestick I don't see that listed. Don't be intimidated it's not too hard. If you have to stream from your phone/pc/tablet to tv it's just about making your device "see" the small portable stick you put in the usb on your tv. It's not too difficult to get that done. If you happen to have an appletv (newer model) or xbox that's already connected to your tv the app is likely to be on those devices already.

https://tv.youtube.com/learn/devices/

My newest Samsung does. It's the only way I can get 4K HDR content. (TiVo gets it too.)

 

[CoralKnight]

I’ve mentioned before how I’m awful at technology. If I subscribe to YoutubeTV for BTN if Comcast drops it, how do I get YoutubeTV on my actually tv? I have a smart tv, with a YouTube app, but didn’t see any YouTube tv app. Do I need a firestick thing to get it from my phone to my tv? Is it self explanatory and easy to do?

1. Buy a Roku stick ($30-$40)
2 Plug into electrical outlet
3. Plug Stick into TV HDMI port.
4 Follow Roku directions to connect to your Network Router
5. Open Roku
6. Go to Search
7. Type in You Tube TV
8. Click on icon and follow directions
ENJOY

 

[Block R]

1. Buy a Roku stick ($30-$40)
2 Plug into electrical outlet
3. Plug Stick into TV HDMI port.
4 Follow Roku directions to connect to your Network Router
5. Open Roku
6. Go to Search
7. Type in You Tube TV
8. Click on icon and follow directions
ENJOY

This is good advice for the non-technical. If you have a 4K TV or are planning to buy one in the near future, pay the extra money for the Roku Ultra which retails for $100 although can be had for less if you look around. The Ultra gives you 4K capability and you--or someone in your family who is technical--the option to hardwire the connection with an ethernet cable from the Roku to your router in the event your wifi signal isn't good enough to stream to the Roku. While it is likely your new(er) TV will have at least some "smart' capabilities (i.e. wifi connection and apps), the app support and app experience in my opinion are much better from a streaming box. Roku devices come with a physical remote control, which to me is a big plus. I started off with Chromecast but didn't like using my phone as the remote control and quickly migrated to Roku.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Some TVs already have Roku built in, nothing extra is needed, just connect the TV to internet and you are good to go.
https://support.roku.com/article/115006651948-what-brands-of-smart-tvs-offer-roku-tv-

 

[Retired711]

Comcast would be hurting itself by not carrying BTN. So perhaps a compromise will be reached. The compromise, though, will certainly mean less money for BTN, which means less money for RU, which means more deficits, which means more attempts to economize.

 

[Block R]

Some TVs already have Roku built in, nothing extra is needed, just connect the TV to internet and you are good to go.
https://support.roku.com/article/115006651948-what-brands-of-smart-tvs-offer-roku-tv-

Correct. While I haven't researched this recently, brands with Roku built-in tended to be on the lower end of the quality scale in the past (i.e. not Samsung, LG or Sony).

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Correct. While I haven't researched this recently, brands with Roku built-in tended to be on the lower end of the quality scale in the past (i.e. not Samsung, LG or Sony).

True, but not everyone wants or can afford a high end TV. But those have streaming apps as well.

https://www.lg.com/us/experience-tvs/smart-entertainment
https://www.sony.com/electronics/smart-tv-features-apps-and-internet
https://www.samsung.com/us/experience/smart-tv/

I have a top of the line (at the time) Plasma which I will never give up as long as it works, so I just use my PS4 to stream, which has tons of apps but not YouTubeTV

 

[Block R]

True, but not everyone wants or can afford a high end TV. But those have streaming apps as well.

https://www.lg.com/us/experience-tvs/smart-entertainment
https://www.sony.com/electronics/smart-tv-features-apps-and-internet
https://www.samsung.com/us/experience/smart-tv/

I have a top of the line (at the time) Plasma which I will never give up as long as it works, so I just use my PS4 to stream, which has tons of apps but not YouTubeTV

Right, they do come with streaming apps. The point I am trying to make is the apps that come with "smart" TVs (and home theater systems, for that matter) won't necessarily stay as up-to-date as what you'll get on a dedicated streaming device such as a Roku. For instance, I have an older Sony home theater system which came with a Netflix app installed, but they stopped updating the app years ago so the experience sucks compared with the Netflix app on my Roku Ultra. Similarly the Amazon app on my LG smart TV is not as good as the Amazon app on my Roku. It makes sense because Roku has one job and needs to do it well to prove its value.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Right, they do come with streaming apps. The point I am trying to make is the apps that come with "smart" TVs (and home theater systems, for that matter) won't necessarily stay as up-to-date as what you'll get on a dedicated streaming device such as a Roku. For instance, I have an older Sony home theater system which came with a Netflix app installed, but they stopped updating the app years ago so the experience sucks compared with the Netflix app on my Roku Ultra. Similarly the Amazon app on my LG smart TV is not as good as the Amazon app on my Roku. It makes sense because Roku has one job and needs to do it well to prove its value.

I agree. I was just trying to think of how to make this as easy for someone as I could.