Posted on 01/02/2013 5:02:23 AM PST by chopperman
For the technically ignorant among us, how do you get your T.V.s to get internet connected?
In my home, we only have internet. I plug my 46” set directly to the htmi output of the video card on my desktop computer. We then use the 46” set for youtube video or computer games. I sometimes use it as my computer monitor too.
I think there are more direct ways to do it now, but that is what works for us.
Not to mention that some channels won't get enough subscribers making them go belly up. Of couse, if they could, that would lead to more profiling which this admin seems to be geared toward. Subscribe to FOX and the Outdoors Channel you're a white gun grabber.
Connect your TV directly to a computer that has internet access. Some TV’s have wifi built in that will connect directly to the internet and to various on line video sources such as Netflix, ect. I think you’ll more large screen TV’s with home theater PC’s built in complete with wireless key board and mice.
I use a small, quiet “shoe box” intel PC with my 32 inch wide screen and while I have FIOS, I also have internet connected to my TV PC and I watch Netflix and others. The PC also lest me edit my DSLR photos right up on a 32 inch screen with amazing results. Talk about a convergence machine!
If you have a decent laptop, you can connect the lap top’s video out put to your TV and connect the laptop to the internet. Even modern “cheapy” laptops(amd apu’s and intel i3’s) can get you good streaming HD signals for your TV; playing games is another issue.(however amd a10 series are said to give i5 intel boxes a run for their money)
I agree. I've been to some third world countries that had better service and plans than the US. I refused to sign up for any two year commitment.
Even some of the countries like Japan and Korea all you had to do was keep the service for one month and you can cancel anytime after that.
The set-top-box is the thing the cable company gives you. Your remote tells the set-top-box what channel to tune to. Intel's box would connect to your Internet on one end, and your TV would connect to it.
Most recent TVs have ethernet data ports. Plug your home router into the ethernet port on the TV. Voila.
Got Netflix and HuluPlus.
I only watch 2 things on network tv. Jeopardy and Big bang theory. Wife likes Castle. That's it. Oh. METV. Memory (something TV) Nostalgia programming. Old tv shows from the 50's and 60's wife watches that a lot.
I love the roku. Lots of choices though their better stuff is dvd only, netflix that is.
Heck if netflix can do it, Intel which has MUCH more powerful resources to draw on can certainly do it. Technologically that is. Dunno about channel contracts and the like. Or govt intervention. We all know how good govt is in intervening in a good thing.
Comcast cable will retaliate ans stifle INTEL by limiting how many gigabytes you can download each month.
Shame because Comcast has blazing hot speed where I am— 24mbps. The best you can get with (ATT) DSL here is 6mbps and for my situation I cannot get above 1.2mbps on a their low tier 1.5mbps connection. My house won’t take in their DSL connections that are rated 3 and 6 mbps. I’m pissed because I would love to play them against each other, which I do but not as effectively as I could if I could get DSL coming in at 4 or 6mbps
You buy a roku or a similar box that connects from your home internet to your TV. Or use your Wii or Playstation.
This won’t last long. Cellular companies will roll out 5g services and have speeds that crush cable in the next few years. They will roll it out quickly as well.
“I agree. I’ve been to some third world countries that had better service and plans than the US. I refused to sign up for any two year commitment.”
I’ve been to Mexico several times (3rd world); never had connection problems.
I’ve been to Western and Southern Europe several times; never had connection problems.
In both cases, I bought a prepaid SIM card, popped it in my (unlocked) phone and done.
Here? Where do I begin? And I live in a fairly large metro area (Boston). Although I’ve been using prepaid here for a while too. Signing a contract is for fools; I’ll buy my own phone and in most cases sell it at a profit (or break even) when I want or need to get something better or newer.
EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve been wanting this for a long time...
NEVER wanted to pay for The Golf Channel, BET, MTV, Hip-HopTV, PMSDNC or any other ridiculous station.
Bust ‘em up, and bust ‘em out.
McCain was going to push for ala carte cable before he ran for president in 2008.
The one useful idea he ever had, and he dropped it.
==
Yep this issue is moot when you haven’t bothered wasting time watching an assorted parade of fools march across the small screen in around 30 years. Just the peace in your home gained from removing the idiot box from your home is worth the um...loss of missing the continual freak show. And to imagine people pay for this visual refuse.
Good. This will force the media to tailor their programming more to what the public wants, rather than what they want to promote.
“So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base”
They say that like it’s a bad thing. Socialism isn’t good for governments, or for cable channels. If ESPN had to compete in a freer market, they would either deliver a better product, lower their prices, or lose out to competition that could do one of those things. Either way you slice it, consumers win.
"Last summer, Peter Kafka at All Things D poured cold water on the idea of Intel unbundling. Not only is going to be hard to make it happen, it’s unclear if it would even save money for cable subscribers:Those bundles are core to today’s TV ecosystem. And the TV guys insist that consumers really don’t want “a la carte” programming, because if they do, the channels/shows they like today will end up costing much, much more.
Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN. And, by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base"
So what if it did? But it won't. What will happen is, ESPN/Dizzney will have to scale back what they pay the leagues -- and that will be interesting.
Why? Because the Convergence is here -- internet provider speeds to home like 24 mips, like dennis has, deliver 1040p on demand to enough of an American base now to justify Intel and Apple selling by single-channel (or even single-show) with internet-abled settop boxes.
Game over for dinosaur buy-the-package-or-die cable, and potential big trouble for the dumbnets like Dizzney and Viacom...
AppleTV. $99, just plug it into HDTV. Get Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, iTunes, Vimeo, and stream stuff from my PC. Love it.
Boo yah! This is great, if it happens. We just purchased a Roku player for each set, so I assume with those and then perhaps subscribing to ESPN through this new product, we would be happy with our TV channel choices.
Even if this doesn’t happen, we are telling Cox Cable good-bye. We are tired of paying a lot of money for channels we don’t watch and don’t even want on our list. I hope this means the monopoly on service that cable companies have (courtesy of local politicians) will finally crumble. Good riddance!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.