2021 TV

I get the feeling that this app will allow betting on games, but won't necessarily allow viewing of games unless the channel is subscribed to via a TV provider.

 

I think betting will be the primary function of the app. The DTC part is still unknown, but I could see something like game replays and pre/post game shows being available as well as "features" on the teams that the channel covers. This assumes that live games will not be available, but who knows that may be an option as well.

 

Magazine/highlight shows that can't be shown on linear TV channels due to time restrictions would be a great thing for an app.

With all the live games that FSO/STO shows, they may not have the desire to show a weekly Crew talk show, but it could easily go up on an app for "on demand" viewing, Netflix-style.

Depending on rights issues, I could see "classic" games going on an app either in a linear format, on demand or even both.

If there's capability for live TV, if they couldn't show the actual game, they could easily show extended post-game coverage, depending on the game/team.

Longhorn Network (University of Texas TV channel) can't show live games. Instead, they have a camera positioned outside of the stadium and show stats. The audio is provided by the radio broadcast. Perhaps LHN is on to something here.

TV channels being available outside of TV providers? That may depend on the contracts signed between Sinclair and the TV providers.

 

According to Andre Knott (dugout reporter for the team formerly known as the Indians), the channels will remain as they are but under a new name. There might also be a pay per game ability for streaming. (Not sure how that works for MLB TV rules.) An app like the current one will be available if you have cable.

Betting lines will be on the broadcasts.

See the A to Z podcast from last week for more info.

 

I just want to watch the crew , currently using my families spectrum login as i cancelled YTTV because i can’t afford it

i have a lot of stories about “TV Consoles “ my grandmother currently has a new tv from my brother in law sitting on top of her console thst she has had since I was a kid.

i remember when i first got my own place and got my own tv console and was pushing it ( it came with wheels you could take on and off ( Zeneith a 1984 model) some nice guy with a truck helped me bring it Home . I had bought it st the second hand store.

but it had this cool switch thst i could hear audio from whatever i was watching on tv while i played my sega Dreamcast online

 

In fact i moved and had to unload thst tv years later by myself from the truck into the house and up the stairs it was one hell of a workout my back hurts just thinking about it

 

Gee, wouldn't it be cool if the league or the franchise would communicate about this? Just in case people want to make plans or something crazy like that?

 

Regarding FSO--they may not know anything more than we do.

Regarding TV in general, it's quite possible they are still working on it.

 

As an aside, watching Europa League Golazo show on CBS All-Access and I enjoy it more than I thought I would. It should be a thing for MLS Decision Day. It'd be great for second sceen viewing.

 

I think it won't be long before many sports are on the "all-access" channels.

I think they will crash and burn eventually--or consolidate. But I may well be wrong--Clarke's First Law.

 

https://www.foxsports.com/presspass...s-whiparound-coverage-mls-decision-day-sunday

 

It's definitely one way to get "everything you want with nothing you don't want for a low price."

Whereas Fox Sports World was a great way to zip around the world (England, Germany, Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina, USA) in a weekend, those days are done. The channel owners know they can overbid and recoup costs via a paywall.


Also, when the hell did "cable" become a generic term for "pay TV?" Ick. There's at least nine different providers in Columbus, but only two of them are cable.

"Oh, you don't have Hulu? You have cable?"
"Actually, I have DirecTV."

It reminds me of:
"I'll have a Coke."
"What type?"
"Oh, a Dr. Pepper."

 

I'm not sure about "the low price". Now maybe. Later? We'll see. I just don't want to have multiple providers each with their own passwords and different access points. It gets too complicated. Plus, it's all streaming--and the quality on that is iffy and can be subject to throttling or data charges.

They aren't doing all of this to make it cheaper for folks in general but to earn more money for their properties.

 

That doesn't seem like the same thing. That seems more like NBC's goal zone where 90% of the time they are on one match and then they just jump in to show other matches goals.

The CBS thing follows the matches that are close or interesting and switches much more often. There didn't seem to be a "featured" match.

 

Bingo. They're viewing it as add-ons to already-existing pay-TV packages. It'll be interesting to see what happens long-term if the channel owners demand, as part of negotiations, to be able to stream on their own. Will Charter, AT&T, Verizon, Google, etc. allow it?

It all depends what you're interested in. I'm locked long-term into Disney+, so there's that. I also do Netflix (and I wish they'd do a long-term deal), HBO Max which comes complimentary with internet, ESPN+ and Peacock...I think I'm about tapped out.

Streaming quality has been great. Peacock is kind of a mess with live sports since you have to start a new stream for every game and there's not much in the way of pause/rewind for live action, but other than that, the picture quality is fantastic. I'll regularly watch on my phone and I'd say it looks just as good. Yeah, there can be a few seconds of blur at the beginning, but I'll overlook that.

 

One day - when all of this is over and we're allowed to be social again - I'd like for you to come sit on my couch and explore my TV with it's one remote and nine (soon to be ten) streaming services and tell me how confusing it is and how the quality is iffy.

I literally change streaming services the same way we changed from the TV to the VCR to the LaserDisc to the DVD back in the good ol' 90s - just push a couple of buttons on the remote.

 

The Peacock UI is the absolute trash. I can't imagine trying to watch sports with that shitty excuse for a 21st-century solution.

 

Part of my issue is the fact that my internet is iffy in my area. We don't have fiber (it is U-verse). Part of it is that, like others my age, I have a fair amount of legacy devices that I use. The main tv is still a picture tube TV. But it works well. I'm not up for a multi-hundred dollar (or more) re-investment in tech.

Part of it is that they are looking for the young-uns, who barely have to think about all of this because they've grown up with the tech. I get that. But folks my age and older have often have a fair amount of disposable income--which a lot of companies don't seem to understand--or care about. Some stuff geared to us might be a moneymaker (like those simplified cell phones with large buttons). If they don't do that, we'll spend it elsewhere, where it is appreciated.

I want tech to make my life easier--not to control it.

And, as you go on to note, it's not all perfect.

 

To your first point, I don't have fiber - just good old Spectrum 300 (or whatever they call it these days).

To your second point: A high-def "smart" TV in the 40-60 inch range is easily had for less than $400 on any given day at your local Best Buy.

Third: Age is a number. You're smart guy, you know how to push buttons. You can do streaming.

Fifth: The companies that are developing this stuff know that their audience prefers easy and convenient above all else (the days of people wanting to be on the bleeding edge are dying) and these services are being developed with users like us in mind: We just want it to work, full stop.

 

I know the feeling, kind of.

My Blu-Ray player doesn't connect to the internet without being physically connected via ethernet. I have a plethora of streaming dongles, so there's really no reason to upgrade.

I'll admit I use my computer just a small handful of times a year, but my monitor? It still works and there's no reason to upgrade. I probably could have bought a fancier one when I did, but I was also looking for something basic. The thing keeps chugging along. If I was sitting there more often, it might be a different story, but I don't like being tied to one area to get online. Plus, there's the whole issue of turning it on and off.

I do think traditional set-top boxes (or receivers, technically now) will be around for a while. Yeah, you may have to twist their arm to get one and they'll sell things like "cloud DVR isn't available if shows are saved locally" but I don't see them going away. FWIW, however, AT&T TV has receivers that run a bunch of various apps *and* has cloud-based DVR...but you don't need to use their receiver.

 

While you do get what you pay for (my LG OLED is stunning!) with TV, the TCL sets are very highly rated and have Roku integrated.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/tcl-55-class-5-series-qled-4k-uhd-smart-roku-tv/6422766.p?skuId=6422766

 

I have one actual TV - it's a Sony Android TV - with Youtube TV and 8 other streaming apps. The only TV show that I want to watch that I have not been able to see is Crew soccer. To me, that's a 99% success rate and I'll live with it.