Online tv question

[Larry Caldwell]

As a tip, I use a full size bluetooth keyboard with my Fire TV. It's way faster than the point and poke remote cursor for entering passwords, searching for stuff, etc. I have a couple fire sticks, but don't know if they have bluetooth. The default web browser is Silk, which is pretty pathetic. The TV and fire sticks don't have enough memory to display complex web sites, though Silk is OK for text browsing.

 

[Larry Caldwell]

You typically won't see anyone run fiber to rural homes, just too expensive. I know we won't do it as of now and probably never will unless the home owner is willing to pay for the cable to be installed. We don't charge for installation, free modem and $65 a month for 1 gig up and down. Fiber is expensive as is the man hours to put it in the ground. We do have a couple of rural neighborhoods we have done with 10 acre lots but that's about it. And I think the only reason we did that one is because someone knew someone. I think with T-Mobile and Verizon Home Internet plans things will get better as long as you are fairly close to a tower. That is the least expensive way to do rural internet.

We got fiber at my house a year ago. They worked out a deal to use power company poles, and strung the fiber overhead. It's a 2-part cable in a plastic sheath, a steel woven wire cable supporting the fiber. We're the last house on this run of power line, but there is power from the other direction on the road, so the provider set up some telephone poles past our place and continued the service.

Congress funded a lot of rural broadband in the infrastructure bill. It needs to be done, just like rural electrification in the '30s. Between fiber and Starlink, rural internet is becoming a possibility. Phone companies are not interested in placing towers anywhere off the main drags, and want to charge per byte.

 

[Larry Caldwell]

True enough, but my 3yo LG phone does not support WiFi calling.

Note that most folks paying for a landline to the POTS (phone company) should dump it if they have internet at home and a cellphone. Even the 911 excuse for keeping a landline no longer applies in some areas.

Another recent change in TV technology: the need for hardware DVR machines to record programs is much reduced due to the fact that live streaming services support automatic and requested cloud-based video recording.

I have a Stylo 4 that "sort of" supports wifi calling. If I run news apps, I have to reboot the phone to get the wifi calling to work. We are still using the old wireless land line handsets with VOIP. My cell phone voice prompt gives the home phone number for contact, which of course the robocalls can't understand.

 

[Oaktree]

LOL!!

You dismiss Starlink as not being a game changer because of your (apparent) angst about Earth's orbital environment and then go on and offer a bunch of reasons why Starlink is, indeed, a game changer.

"Thing is, you're stuck with what's available where you live."

Exactly. Starlink provides high quality, very fast, unlimited data volume ISP capability anywhere on the globe, including all those places where other types of ISPs (cable, DSL/phone, fiber, LTE, etc) are not available.

"Pricey too."

How many other ISPs of any infrastructure/medium offer a $99/mo plan with unlimited data volume and 120-250 Mb/s speed? I'll wait while you compile that monstrously large list (/sarcasm) showing how expensive Starlink is compared to others.

Your worries (founded or not) about satellite congestion are irrelevant to the fact that Starlink is an amazing offering for people who have not had good Internet access previously. Your dislike for the company doesn't change the facts of the situation.

Was the snarkiness really necessary?
Almost no one needs unlimited data or anywhere close to 250 M speed, yet with Starlink that's the only option. IMHO a true "game changer" would be to offer at the very least an option for a reasonable speed (40-50 M) at an affordable price (<$50/mo). Not everyone has such deep pockets that $100/mo plus $500 up front is "reasonable". Essentially forcing someone to buy a Mercedes when all they really needed/wanted was a Honda.

No, I don't particularly care for Mr. Musk...I think he's a huckster but even if he was the hero so many here seem to make him out to be, this is still a lousy deal. And why, pray tell do you think satellite congestion is irrelevant?

 

[BigBlue1]

I think it was, because I think the arguments against it are really thin and border on some apparent (and misplaced) spite for the company. Which you just admitted to. So yes, I'm going to call out what I see.

It IS a game changer because it allows highly capable Internet service in places that either A) it just isn't available in any fashion; or B) is only available in very slow or unreliable manner. The rest of your quibbles do not invalidate the fact that it is a game changer.

How many other ISPs offering any comparable type of high-speed broadband charge dramatically less than $99/mo?? Sure, just as with any other service, you can find super-thrifty plans out there, but $80-120/mo is pretty much the norm across ISPs for unlimited Internet. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything. If you live in an area and want reliable high-speed Internet you now have an option to get it. Whether you find the cost/benefit to your liking is your decision. But it is there for the many who want it. They never promised the offering as a budget service. Do you criticize Mercedes for not offering a Chevy Aveo competitor?

Satellite congestion has nothing to do with the fact that the service is a remarkable game changer, whether or not congestion issues are a reality.

 

[Larry Caldwell]

I think it was, because I think the arguments against it are really thin and border on some apparent (and misplaced) spite for the company. Which you just admitted to. So yes, I'm going to call out what I see.

It IS a game changer because it allows highly capable Internet service in places that either A) it just isn't available in any fashion; or B) is only available in very slow or unreliable manner. The rest of your quibbles do not invalidate the fact that it is a game changer.

How many other ISPs offering any comparable type of high-speed broadband charge dramatically less than $99/mo?? Sure, just as with any other service, you can find super-thrifty plans out there, but $80-120/mo is pretty much the norm across ISPs for unlimited Internet. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything. If you live in an area and want reliable high-speed Internet you now have an option to get it. Whether you find the cost/benefit to your liking is your decision. But it is there for the many who want it. They never promised the offering as a budget service. Do you criticize Mercedes for not offering a Chevy Aveo competitor?

Satellite congestion has nothing to do with the fact that the service is a remarkable game changer, whether or not congestion issues are a reality.

Yes, our fiber costs $129/month, 100 mb plus VOIP phone service. The old copper phone company dinged us a total of $100/month for a ratty copper land line that lost service twice a month and 800 kb (!) DSL service. The last snow storm, power was out for 2.5 days, while the fiber never blinked. The old phone land line only had battery backup for 24 hours, so we would have been without phone service for a day and a half.

They spent big bucks to string miles of fiber in a rural area. I don't begrudge them the bill. The same with Starlink, which provides service to friends that otherwise would not have internet. Launching all those satellites and maintaining the system costs.

 

[BigBlue1]

Speaking of copper lines and DSL and pricing...

The main ISP we had when we moved to our property in 2016 was a 5Mb/s DSL plan (1.5-3 was the norm). It cost $90/mo. I kept it around as a backup after moving primarily to LTE hotspot but ditched it after Starlink became solid for us. There is no 'cheap' ISP in rural areas that I know of. If you have an ISP it is close to $100/mo no matter the quality of service. Which is another counter to the "Starlink is super expensive!" take on things above.

 

[JethroB]

I have Windstream DSL service. $102 total each month for a mostly solid 10-12 mbs. Pretty reliable. $55 for internet plus $10 to rent the WiFi router (no option to buy it). The remaining $37 is for fees & taxes mostly related to the unwanted & unused landline. Starlink recently changed my date to February (next month!) and I’m looking forward to it. So dollar-wise after StarLink equipment purchase my monthly cost will remain about the same.

 

[Dftodd]

I have Windstream DSL service. $102 total each month for a mostly solid 10-12 mbs. Pretty reliable. $55 for internet plus $10 to rent the WiFi router (no option to buy it). The remaining $37 is for fees & taxes mostly related to the unwanted & unused landline. Starlink recently changed my date to February (next month!) and I’m looking forward to it. So dollar-wise after StarLink equipment purchase my monthly cost will remain about the same.

I paid $78 a month total for 100mbs. Got grandfathered in since I was an existing customer at the 1 to 3mbs speed.

Same thing would cost me $120 if I moved back into that area again.

 

[EddieWalker]

I bought the Firestick over a month ago, and still having switched to it from ROKU. Prices on the ROKU have been creeping up, so it's something I want to do, I just haven't felt like dealing with it.