I am ditching cable, and was wondering if there is a site where you can watch streaming TV live.

12/1/2011 4:44:00 PM

I hear justin has a tv.

12/1/2011 5:37:31 PM

You do realize that cable is the service you're describing?

12/1/2011 5:55:51 PM

^^ only good for a couple of minutes until the stream gets shut down

12/1/2011 6:13:01 PM

http://www.firstrowsports.tv/sport/tv-box.html

12/1/2011 8:07:20 PM

*facepalm*

12/1/2011 8:46:39 PM

http://www.twcnc.com

12/1/2011 8:51:04 PM

.... why not get an antenna?

12/1/2011 9:36:10 PM

whatever happened to that handheld tv streaming thing...WRAL used to advertise it by showing a guy walking around with (what i thought was) a smartphone and watching CBS

maybe he was just carrying a portable television, though

12/2/2011 10:28:24 AM

^It's call slingbox or Ovo, but either way you still have to have a cable subscription.

The only way I know of to watch live TV online, semi-legally, is using http://www.sopcast.com/
but the quality is so shitty, and the choice is so terrible, it's honestly not worth it.

12/2/2011 2:28:44 PM

so who is to blame for us not having internet tv being as good, if not better, than cable/satellite tv. with technology today, it seems absurd that you can't purchase an online TV subscription and have all the channels you'll ever need.

12/2/2011 2:33:56 PM

^You can, it's called Hulu Plus. Online TV != Live TV.

12/2/2011 2:35:20 PM

You've missed my point. I want live TV with all major channels. There is no technological reason this does not exist.

12/2/2011 2:37:32 PM

^

Quote :

"You do realize that cable is the service you're describing?"

12/2/2011 3:00:21 PM

right, but not.

12/2/2011 3:12:21 PM

I mean, if you're just looking for it to be technologically different than cable, there's always U-Verse.

12/2/2011 3:15:32 PM

12/2/2011 3:28:00 PM

i wanted one of those so badly back in the day

12/2/2011 3:30:11 PM

who didn't? better question was who could find one? they made like 12 of those things

12/2/2011 5:41:58 PM

Quote :

"You've missed my point. I want live TV with all major channels. There is no technological reason this does not exist."

This DOES EXIST. Cable subscription + Slingbox does EXACTLY what you're asking for.

12/2/2011 6:13:09 PM

he's asking for an iptv subscription instead of a hard line+equipment subscription, not some cobbled together shit that requires a specific device+app to use

12/2/2011 6:28:45 PM

Guys, I want I think that will get me places, and I can put stuff in it, and it goes way faster than just walking. But I don't want a car. Any advice?

12/2/2011 6:59:46 PM

Quote :

"Guys, I want I think that will get me places, and I can put stuff in it, and it goes way faster than just walking. But I don't want a car. Any advice?"

I think my Johnny Mnemonic security data code just got decrypted

12/2/2011 7:29:42 PM

Quote :

"he's asking for an iptv subscription"

Exists too, Verizon Fios or AT&T U-Verse. What he wants is an end to the media conglomerates controlling all of our video content. Which isn't going to happen, so there's no point whatsoever to bitching about it.

The problem isn't the lack of a software solution, the problem is a business and market with absolutely no incentive to play ball. Plenty of people have already made compelling software solutions and failed miserably.

12/2/2011 8:11:03 PM

http://www.boxee.tv/livetv

12/2/2011 11:01:17 PM

^^ espn3 looks pretty solid to me. more content providers need to get on the bandwagon

12/2/2011 11:17:54 PM

^^That thing is beyond useless and completely irrelevant to the discussion being held in this thread.

12/2/2011 11:21:13 PM

Quote :

"whatever happened to that handheld tv streaming thing...WRAL used to advertise it by showing a guy walking around with (what i thought was) a smartphone and watching CBS ^It's call slingbox or Ovo, but either way you still have to have a cable subscription."

No, no its not. It is (was?) mobile TV...broadcast TV being broadcast directly to your mobile device FOR FREE, same as with an over the air tuner for TVs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_television#Broadcast_mobile_DTV_development
http://www.wral.com/wral-tv/flash/3209865/
WRAL was the first, so of course they were pimping it out a lot.

12/6/2011 12:51:42 AM

^still huge in Japan and South Korea, but never caught on here.

12/6/2011 2:00:51 AM

I didn't realize I could use FIOS or Uverse to watch TV on my computer, anywhere in the world. I didn't realize they let me purchase internet TV packages, such as a ESPN package, Local network package, music package, etc.

All some of you have offered is a different means to get TV service; I want a completely new TV service that can be sent to a box for a TV or directly to a computer; a service where I have more control over what I pay for, something I can use all over the world via wifi, cell, etc. services to watch the packages I've subscribed to.

12/6/2011 8:50:22 AM

everyone wants that

cannot has

12/6/2011 9:16:00 AM

I too want a lot of things.

12/6/2011 9:17:14 AM

I know a lot of people want it. The question is, why don't we have it? Who is to blame for this holding back of service? The technology and market is there... so back to my original post in this thread:

so who is to blame for us not having internet tv being as good, if not better, than cable/satellite tv. with technology today, it seems absurd that you can't purchase an online TV subscription and have all the channels you'll ever need.

12/6/2011 9:32:13 AM

Noen has already answered your question. What incentive does big cable have to offer you 6 channels of your choice at $3 a piece when they force you into paying for 300 channels at $90 a month?

It probably won't be much longer before services like U-Verse are what you described. The new Xbox Dashboard (supposedly released today, but we'll see) allows you to watch all your TV content on your Xbox if you have a participating provider. There are apps for the iPad that allow you to watch most of your channels on it (again, specific providers only). Change is coming. It has to. In 20 years, I doubt cable TV will exist as we know it today. But it's not going to just change overnight.

12/6/2011 4:04:43 PM

^ the same that the record companies had. People are going to do it for free if you don't provide it.

Boxee plus RSS and Put.IO with Vudu gets anything you'd ever want in HD minutes after it airs.

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM. Reason : a]

12/7/2011 10:46:59 AM

Quote :

"the same that the record companies had."

That's not a fair comparison to make. Before the internet, people bought music one $10 CD at a time. Or bought singles for a couple of bucks. Allowing for $1 downloads didn't significantly change the overall cost of paying for content because people were already used to paying for music on a per-song (or at least per-album) basis. TV isn't like that at all.

Quote :

"People are going to do it for free if you don't provide it."

I highly doubt this as well. People that are going to steal TV and music are gonna do it regardless of if a paid alternative is available or not. I mean, the fact that iTunes exists doesn't negate all the people that still illegally download mp3s. Adding online TV services aren't going to make that many people magically start paying for TV if they aren't already.

Quote :

"Boxee plus RSS and Put.IO with Vudu"

Case in point. How many "normal" people are going to go to the trouble of looking up all 4 of those things and spending the hours, if not days required to figure out how they all work together? Just for TV? Nah. A service like iTunes gets used by the masses because it just works and anyone can figure it out. And that will be why someone would switch to an online TV service.

12/7/2011 2:54:16 PM

Quote :

" That's not a fair comparison to make. Before the internet, people bought music one $10 CD at a time. Or bought singles for a couple of bucks. Allowing for $1 downloads didn't significantly change the overall cost of paying for content because people were already used to paying for music on a per-song (or at least per-album) basis. TV isn't like that at all. "

Before the internet people actually bought music $14 - $17 a CD and $6 for a single. And if it was a new release then you could get it for $10 at the big box stores. Just because TV isn't like that now doesn't mean it shouldn't be like that.

Quote :

" I highly doubt this as well. People that are going to steal TV and music are gonna do it regardless of if a paid alternative is available or not. I mean, the fact that iTunes exists doesn't negate all the people that still illegally download mp3s. Adding online TV services aren't going to make that many people magically start paying for TV if they aren't already. "

That's just not true. In my case if I hear a new song, I usually buy it then and there, even if it's 1 AM at a friends house. That's the easiest thing for me to do. If I had to wait until the next day and drive to a record store I'd probably download it when I got home and never make the trip.

That seems to be the case across the board...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem

Quote :

" Case in point. How many "normal" people are going to go to the trouble of looking up all 4 of those things and spending the hours, "

How many normal people are going to hook up a computer in their car and spend hours on FTP sites looking for music? No normal person wants digital music! The CD player is already in the car and people know how to use them already.

Case in point, I was doing using digital music in my car in the late 1990s and 5 years later everyone was doing it. All it took was some imagination. You don't think there's 1000 startups in silicon valley trying to solve this problem for video? There's one next to my office.

12/7/2011 5:25:35 PM

The difference is that, with video, the IP structure is completely different and completely monopolized.

At least with music there are independent publishers and labels who control their own destiny, so that startups and incubations can actually come to market and test the technology.

With video, this doesn't exist. Damn near ALL of the content people want to watch is owned by a handful of massive companies who have repeatedly shown that ANY innovation outside their walls will be crushed. Netflix succeeded because of several loopholes. Now we're seeing what happens when the loopholes are closed.

This problem has NOTHING to do with a lack of innovation, or technology or ideas. It is 100% caused by our IP laws in combination with an oligopoly who routinely practices collusion and anti-competitive behavior to stifle natural progress.

We have monopoly laws which are hard enough to prove, but good luck trying to take down an oligopoly. As long as they continue to work together, shit aint gonna change soon. Once the system starts to crack, we are going to see a HUGE change happen quickly.

12/7/2011 6:07:28 PM

Quote :

"Just because TV isn't like that now doesn't mean it shouldn't be like that."

Sigh. I'm not trying to argue that TV shouldn't be like that, I'm trying to tell you why it's not. Noen did a much better job in ^that post however. The point I was trying to make (and Noen just drove home) is that you can't use music as an example of how TV will operate for many reasons, number one of which is that the price structure as it stands now benefits the content holders, and until that changes, you won't see the changes that people in this thread are calling for. You can have the people in the office next to you figuring out the greatest and simplest way to distribute content to you all day long, but until the people that actually MAKE the content sign on board to let them use their stuff, it's just a pipe dream.

12/7/2011 7:10:37 PM

^ && ^^


I guess time will tell, but someone at some point will develop something that is overly easy to use. Maybe it will operate out of China or the Islands or Turkey, but it will hurt them nonetheless and force them to do what the customer wants--or we'll be living as peasants after they shut down the internet.



[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 8:57 PM. Reason : a]

12/7/2011 8:55:53 PM

Thanks for reiterating what I said 7 posts up:

Quote :

"It has to. In 20 years, I doubt cable TV will exist as we know it today. But it's not going to just change overnight."

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM. Reason : minus the retarded part about China or Turkey.]

12/7/2011 8:58:32 PM

Quote :

"I guess time will tell, but someone at some point will develop something that is overly easy to use. "

They already have. Actually dozens of companies already have. That's not the damn problem.

12/7/2011 9:12:27 PM

^

I know but most of them have artificial barriers to getting most content when it airs. At best you can get it a few days after it airs if you know what you are doing. That is a huge issue for most people. I have a Boxee Box and that is easy enough, but my guess is that my parents and people of there age, would have issues with even that as was alluded to earlier. If there was something more straight forward than that it could be more disruptive.

12/7/2011 9:25:16 PM

I give up. This guy is never gonna get it.

12/7/2011 9:28:22 PM

Just to reiterate, it's not a matter of developing anything or waiting for the technology, it's about preventing bullshit like SOPA and PROTECT IP from getting pushed through because the FCC and the majority of legislators know fuck-all about the interwebs but get shitboats of money from MPAA and RIAA.

12/7/2011 9:29:35 PM

Wait what?

Quote :

" How many normal people are going to hook up a computer in their car and spend hours on FTP sites looking for music? No normal person wants digital music! The CD player is already in the car and people know how to use them already. "

Specifically:

Quote :

" No normal person wants digital music! "

Reverse that.

12/7/2011 9:33:45 PM

Sarcasm. I was talking about how people said the same thing about music 13 years ago.

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 11:21 PM. Reason : a]

12/7/2011 11:08:49 PM