Online tv question

[JD 4520]

What is the solution when your internet speed is only 5mg down?

If you really want cable (video) in this situation, the obvious choices are Directv and Directv. If you’ve come this far without, you’re life is probably not missing anything.

 

[dfkrug]

What is the solution when your internet speed is only 5mg down?

I am now on streaming for everything after dumping Dishnet this last year. Tho I live in the mountains, I am just a few miles from the Silicon Valley.

Despite living near the cradle of hi-tech, our crappy old telephone lines have only been delivering DSL since about 2008. I am currently using bonded pair internet (2 pairs twisted copper) and get 28Mb/s download speed. Love it. When it was only 3Mb/s about 7 years ago, I could stream a std-def Netflix movie using a Nintendo gaming box connected by WiFi to my modem. You don't need great speed for a well-designed system with good buffering like Netflix has.

We now get all live TV thru Hulu using a Roku dedicated streaming box (Wifi). About $75/month, which is what we used to pay Dishnet, but is far superior. I would think that you would need at least 10Mb/s for that, but others may opine.

BTW, I also use VOIP instead of a landline, due to poor cell phone reception here and Frontier's refusal to restore my landline. It only costs $3/mo with Skype-to-phone service.

 

[JD 4520]

I am now on streaming for everything after dumping Dishnet this last year. Tho I live in the mountains, I am just a few miles from the Silicon Valley.

Despite living near the cradle of hi-tech, our crappy old telephone lines have only been delivering DSL since about 2008. I am currently using bonded pair internet (2 pairs twisted copper) and get 28Mb/s download speed. Love it. When it was only 3Mb/s about 7 years ago, I could stream a std-def Netflix movie using a Nintendo gaming box connected by WiFi to my modem. You don't need great speed for a well-designed system with good buffering like Netflix has.

We now get all live TV thru Hulu using a Roku dedicated streaming box (Wifi). About $75/month, which is what we used to pay Dishnet, but is far superior. I would think that you would need at least 10Mb/s for that, but others may opine.

BTW, I also use VOIP instead of a landline, due to poor cell phone reception here and Frontier's refusal to restore my landline. It only costs $3/mo with Skype-to-phone service.

See, I’m telling you guys this really works and this is the future for cable. Eventually you will want and need more bandwidth but you don’t need it presently. More will eventually come due to costs and technology.

Great overview!

 

[BigBlue1]

What is the solution when your internet speed is only 5mg down?

When we first moved to our rural home in 2016 the only feasible ISP option was 5Mb/s DSL. Which really only gave us 1.5-3 Mb/s normally because of the quality of the system. We were able to stream Netflix over it. Not HD usually, and for sure not 4K. But it worked.

 

[lman]

I am now on streaming for everything after dumping Dishnet this last year. Tho I live in the mountains, I am just a few miles from the Silicon Valley.

Despite living near the cradle of hi-tech, our crappy old telephone lines have only been delivering DSL since about 2008. I am currently using bonded pair internet (2 pairs twisted copper) and get 28Mb/s download speed. Love it. When it was only 3Mb/s about 7 years ago, I could stream a std-def Netflix movie using a Nintendo gaming box connected by WiFi to my modem. You don't need great speed for a well-designed system with good buffering like Netflix has.

We now get all live TV thru Hulu using a Roku dedicated streaming box (Wifi). About $75/month, which is what we used to pay Dishnet, but is far superior. I would think that you would need at least 10Mb/s for that, but others may opine.

BTW, I also use VOIP instead of a landline, due to poor cell phone reception here and Frontier's refusal to restore my landline. It only costs $3/mo with Skype-to-phone service.

Your internet should support wifi calling. I would skip the $3 and use your cell phone. Newer cell phones are able to make and receive calls by wifi.

 

[jyoutz]

Apologies if something here is repeated. The future of TV is streaming. We are in a long transition from “cable” to streaming. Streaming is over IP or easier stated high speed internet (HSD) connection. Today, HSD really only needs to be 100mg to get really good and reliable service for a typical family- that honestly may be overstated. So, if you have a good, newer Smart TV and good HSD, you can get anything you want to watch at reasonable prices. The reason being is you won’t generally have to pay for a 300 channel package that you only watch 7 channels on.
If you have the newer Smart TV and good HSD, begin your own transition to streaming services. Try a number of services like YouTube TV and others. You will eventually have access to any package and not limited at all to the local provider, only the HSD service. Within 10 years, cable as we have known it should be phased out.
BTW, I have 1G service, just because I can get it, but do I use or need more than 100mg, nope, not at all. Happy to try to answer more questions along this line.

Streaming sucks when your internet connection is slow (like many rural areas).

 

[dfkrug]

Your internet should support wifi calling. I would skip the $3 and use your cell phone. Newer cell phones are able to make and receive calls by wifi.

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.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

My son bought us a roku when he lived with us, and he pays for multiple streaming services which I get to use.

 

[dfkrug]

My son bought us a roku when he lived with us, and he pays for multiple streaming services which I get to use.

It is not rare for folks to be paying hundreds of $ per month for data services (internet, video, etc), and another hundred $/mo or so for cell phone service.

Gone are the days when you can find every movie you want to watch on Netflix. Or even every episode in a series you want to see. So you must pay for Netflix, PrimeVideo, Paramount, PBS, etc. Then add "live-TV" to get the usual networks and cable-TV channels. Many channels have their own premium streaming services as well. Sometimes I envy my BIL, who can get digital video over the air, for free, since he has line-of-sight to the TV transmitter mountain 75 mi away.

One more option is you can get your local library to purchase the DVD or DVD set so you can borrow it for free.

 

[fiddlearound]

If you really want cable (video) in this situation, the obvious choices are Directv and Directv. If you’ve come this far without, you’re life is probably not missing anything.

Thanks, I've had Direct for twenty years. I'm a retired golf professional and enjoy the Golf channel and it's only offered on the upper level so we pay about $140 a month for that and the ten other channels we watch. Just seems wrong to pay that much for 40 minutes of programming per hour and still have to endure 20 minutes of propaganda.

So I'm looking for a better solution. I try to follow my alumni athletics so I purchased ESPN plus, but it buffers so much that its unwatchable. Utube videos work a little better so I watch that some.

 

[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.