|
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:
John H. Wrote in message: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:08:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 12:57 PM, amdx wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/26/2018 12:38 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:35:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 12:26 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:52:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:34 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:26:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:18 AM, wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:00:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 7:48 AM, justan wrote: "Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message: On 2/25/2018 10:33 PM, wrote: I am really serious about cutting the cord. My wife says after the olympics but that was today. I am already transitioning to streaming, I am working my way through the Amazon Prime documentaries They have just about anything that PBS ever aired. I talked about the American Experience show about the MLK assassination the other day. Today I am watching Frontline season 27 ep 8. This is contemporary with the 2009 crash and it is pretty interesting, carving through some of the myths we may have. I occasionally watch something from Amazon Prime's inventory. My large HD TV is not "smart" (connected to the Internet) so I use the Sony PS4 to stream stuff from Amazon. Their prime account entitles you to many movies and archived shows as you mention for free. I can also access Hulu, Netfix and other sources but I don't watch enough to bother with them. Smart tvs are cheap nowadays. I paid 800 for a 60 inch smart plasma tv at good old Walmart. A side benefit is that I can heat the house with it. Mine can become "smart" if I buy a Roku wireless streaming stick that plugs into the TV's USB port. It's a 65" and I bought it before having Internet connectivity became built-in on most TVs. Accessing the 'net via the PS4 is just as effective and it works fine. I just don't watch TV enough to warrant buying another TV just for built-in Internet connectivity. Most of the time I just use a little 23" HD TV that sits on my desk beside my computer monitor. Just hook an old PC to it. With a 2.4gz wireless mouse you end up with a TV that is a whole lot smarter than the ones sold as smart. We have both here. The PC connected wins every time in every category. The best combo seems to be my "travel" laptop connected to some no name TV. When the lap top turns off the TV goes to sleep and I have it set to hibernate when you close the lid. Open the lid, the pc comes to life and the TV comes on. You can get to any streaming service that way along with being able to play music or look at your pictures using whatever PC app you like. I don't collect or save old PCs. When they crap out or become so obsolete they can't run current apps efficiently I buy a new one. I "do" have an older Win 7 laptop that I no longer use regularly but I keep it as a backup or possible traveling computer. Somewhere I have an old XP laptop as well but it is painfully slow compared to Win 7 and Win 10. I wouldn't even bother with it. Besides, the little Roku thingy is much smaller and easier to mess with. I still don't really understand how people who want to get rid of services like Comcast cable TV and Internet and go to streaming only are going to have access to the Internet. I think I posted the results of the tests I did that compared download speeds of AT&T's 4G WiFi service that I have in my truck and the download speeds of the Comcast (cable) WiFi router in my house. Comcast was consistently 3 to 4 times faster, sometimes even more. The AT&T test (I did several for each) often reported that although web browsing would be ok, videos may be slow, especially if more than one device was connected to the WiFi server. The Comcast speed report consistently said that it's speed would allow web browsing and HD video downloads to several devices at the same time. For me, cutting the cord would be cutting the TV and telephone cords. The internet cord would stay whole. The TV cord is over $100/month, and that's without a bunch of movie channels. The telephone cord is another $40/month. How much is your Internet service? I don't have that problem. I have just have what's called "expanded basic TV". I can always order something "On Demand" but I can't remember the last time I did. Forget what it costs but it's cheap compared to the Internet service. I don't have phone service via cable. Just use my cell phone. It's a second account on her cell phone service and compared to her cell phone bill, mine contribution to it is peanuts. I pay $55 for internet. Ok. I pay a little less ... $49/month. The AT&T WiFi in the truck is $20/mo. for unlimited service but it's not anywhere near as fast. I may cancel it. Don't really know why I even got it. I have buddy the recently switched from Comcast to WOW, because Comcast wouldn't negotiate their price. Wow gave him internet for $39.99. He recommended Wow to a friend and the friend got the same 100Mbps service for $29.99. My buddy was a bit perplexed! Mikek The problem is that WOW isn't available in many places. In many areas Comcast is the only game in town. We now have a choice of Verizon or Cox. I've been with Cox since early 90's, but just about every year my bill jumps up $40-$50, sometimes more. And then I call, argue for an hour, threaten to go to Verizon, and my bill stays around $150-160, with 'promotions'. In September all my promotions run out and the lady says my bill would go to $240. We'll see how many promotions I can qualify for in September. Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about 60 channels with it. That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just too lazy to put it up yet. |
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:49:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 2/27/2018 1:17 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:36:00 -0600, amdx wrote: I have 30Mbps I often wonder how that translates to the real world. I had a lot of conversations with various tech support groups leading up to switching my web host and the problems that prompted that. The consensus was running a speed test to your ISPs test site was meaningless other than what the max is you can get. When you go to 3d party sites, that is a test of your servers and their servers but the real issue is what you can actually get when talking to a web site or other service. I know my news server is not even close to being able to keep my 10mb pipe full. I have also had times when Amazon was not able to keep a stream going without buffering, even tho I still had plenty of capacity on my end. (I could start a Netflix). It was just a new show on Prime and I am guessing they were slammed. That huge capacity may be good for multiple users hitting multiple byte hungry sites but I am not sure it is of a lot of value for 1 or 2 users. My wife's place was running the whole club on one Comcast line and they finally had to buy another one, not because of throughput but simply because one IP address could not support the number of unique sub net IPs they had on the LAN. Granted all of them were not streaming cat videos on Facebook but it was more than a few. Years ago when we wintered in Florida we had DSL because cable was not available. It worked ok but videos and HD media was not as popular and as heavily downloaded back then. When I opened the guitar shop in 2009 the building was not wired for cable so I had to get DSL again. That's when I really starting to notice the difference between the shop's DSL Internet speed and the speed of Comcast cable we had at the house. I used to update the shop's website daily and the program I used reloaded all of the website's content which would take forever on DSL. I ended up doing it at home after the shop closed. On cable the complete site would upload in less than 30 seconds. At the shop it sometimes took 5-10 minutes and often it would hang up and I'd have to start all over again. There is a difference, especially when more and more devices are added. Now with two or cell phones constantly connected, multiple computers, tablets, Smart TVs, etc., I can't see how DSL can be quick enough, but I don't have it anymore so I don't know. They are making DSL faster than it used to be. That is probably the difference. From what I can see it takes about 3mb to stream HD and that used to be fast DSL. Now I get a solid 10. We can stream 2 shows at once and I am still browsing. My problem with Comcast has always reliability. They are still running on the same "plant" Media One put in 20 years ago when 8mb was fast broadband. The speed is good if your neighbors are not banging it too hard since you are sharing the pipe but they are down a lot and not real responsive about fixing it. My wife used to fight with them about once a week and she had a commercial account plus 799 residential customers. |
Amazon prime TV
On 2/27/2018 5:06 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote: John H. Wrote in message: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:08:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 12:57 PM, amdx wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/26/2018 12:38 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:35:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 12:26 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:52:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:34 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:26:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:18 AM, wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:00:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 7:48 AM, justan wrote: "Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message: On 2/25/2018 10:33 PM, wrote: I am really serious about cutting the cord. My wife says after the olympics but that was today. I am already transitioning to streaming, I am working my way through the Amazon Prime documentaries They have just about anything that PBS ever aired. I talked about the American Experience show about the MLK assassination the other day. Today I am watching Frontline season 27 ep 8. This is contemporary with the 2009 crash and it is pretty interesting, carving through some of the myths we may have. I occasionally watch something from Amazon Prime's inventory. My large HD TV is not "smart" (connected to the Internet) so I use the Sony PS4 to stream stuff from Amazon. Their prime account entitles you to many movies and archived shows as you mention for free. I can also access Hulu, Netfix and other sources but I don't watch enough to bother with them. Smart tvs are cheap nowadays. I paid 800 for a 60 inch smart plasma tv at good old Walmart. A side benefit is that I can heat the house with it. Mine can become "smart" if I buy a Roku wireless streaming stick that plugs into the TV's USB port. It's a 65" and I bought it before having Internet connectivity became built-in on most TVs. Accessing the 'net via the PS4 is just as effective and it works fine. I just don't watch TV enough to warrant buying another TV just for built-in Internet connectivity. Most of the time I just use a little 23" HD TV that sits on my desk beside my computer monitor. Just hook an old PC to it. With a 2.4gz wireless mouse you end up with a TV that is a whole lot smarter than the ones sold as smart. We have both here. The PC connected wins every time in every category. The best combo seems to be my "travel" laptop connected to some no name TV. When the lap top turns off the TV goes to sleep and I have it set to hibernate when you close the lid. Open the lid, the pc comes to life and the TV comes on. You can get to any streaming service that way along with being able to play music or look at your pictures using whatever PC app you like. I don't collect or save old PCs. When they crap out or become so obsolete they can't run current apps efficiently I buy a new one. I "do" have an older Win 7 laptop that I no longer use regularly but I keep it as a backup or possible traveling computer. Somewhere I have an old XP laptop as well but it is painfully slow compared to Win 7 and Win 10. I wouldn't even bother with it. Besides, the little Roku thingy is much smaller and easier to mess with. I still don't really understand how people who want to get rid of services like Comcast cable TV and Internet and go to streaming only are going to have access to the Internet. I think I posted the results of the tests I did that compared download speeds of AT&T's 4G WiFi service that I have in my truck and the download speeds of the Comcast (cable) WiFi router in my house. Comcast was consistently 3 to 4 times faster, sometimes even more. The AT&T test (I did several for each) often reported that although web browsing would be ok, videos may be slow, especially if more than one device was connected to the WiFi server. The Comcast speed report consistently said that it's speed would allow web browsing and HD video downloads to several devices at the same time. For me, cutting the cord would be cutting the TV and telephone cords. The internet cord would stay whole. The TV cord is over $100/month, and that's without a bunch of movie channels. The telephone cord is another $40/month. How much is your Internet service? I don't have that problem. I have just have what's called "expanded basic TV". I can always order something "On Demand" but I can't remember the last time I did. Forget what it costs but it's cheap compared to the Internet service. I don't have phone service via cable. Just use my cell phone. It's a second account on her cell phone service and compared to her cell phone bill, mine contribution to it is peanuts. I pay $55 for internet. Ok. I pay a little less ... $49/month. The AT&T WiFi in the truck is $20/mo. for unlimited service but it's not anywhere near as fast. I may cancel it. Don't really know why I even got it. I have buddy the recently switched from Comcast to WOW, because Comcast wouldn't negotiate their price. Wow gave him internet for $39.99. He recommended Wow to a friend and the friend got the same 100Mbps service for $29.99. My buddy was a bit perplexed! Mikek The problem is that WOW isn't available in many places. In many areas Comcast is the only game in town. We now have a choice of Verizon or Cox. I've been with Cox since early 90's, but just about every year my bill jumps up $40-$50, sometimes more. And then I call, argue for an hour, threaten to go to Verizon, and my bill stays around $150-160, with 'promotions'. In September all my promotions run out and the lady says my bill would go to $240. We'll see how many promotions I can qualify for in September. Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about 60 channels with it. That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just too lazy to put it up yet. I was really surprised how many digital channels (many in HD) were available when I set up a TV and a cheap, rabbit ear antenna in the "barn" garage at our previous house. We were well outside of the recommended range being almost 40 miles south of Boston and even further from Providence, RI, yet still got 50-60 channels. I tried a couple of antenna types and the best one had a built-in RF amplifier. It was only about $19. |
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:58:54 -0600, amdx wrote:
Now a days, you need to carry a pair of channel locks and your favorite shower head. Just don't forget it when you leave. Mikek That seems to be true everywhere but Northern California. This was Tahoe (Squaw Valley Resort) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...strictions.jpg OTOH right around the corner in Tioga Pass they lock up the water. http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...he%20Water.jpg |
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:17:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/27/2018 5:06 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote: snippage Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about 60 channels with it. That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just too lazy to put it up yet. I was really surprised how many digital channels (many in HD) were available when I set up a TV and a cheap, rabbit ear antenna in the "barn" garage at our previous house. We were well outside of the recommended range being almost 40 miles south of Boston and even further from Providence, RI, yet still got 50-60 channels. I tried a couple of antenna types and the best one had a built-in RF amplifier. It was only about $19. I came across this site when thinking of the outdoor antenna. Don't know how accurate it is, but it's pretty cool. https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/dtvmaps Another one: https://www.antennasdirect.com/transmitter-locator.html |
Amazon prime TV
On 2/27/2018 5:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:49:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 1:17 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:36:00 -0600, amdx wrote: I have 30Mbps I often wonder how that translates to the real world. I had a lot of conversations with various tech support groups leading up to switching my web host and the problems that prompted that. The consensus was running a speed test to your ISPs test site was meaningless other than what the max is you can get. When you go to 3d party sites, that is a test of your servers and their servers but the real issue is what you can actually get when talking to a web site or other service. I know my news server is not even close to being able to keep my 10mb pipe full. I have also had times when Amazon was not able to keep a stream going without buffering, even tho I still had plenty of capacity on my end. (I could start a Netflix). It was just a new show on Prime and I am guessing they were slammed. That huge capacity may be good for multiple users hitting multiple byte hungry sites but I am not sure it is of a lot of value for 1 or 2 users. My wife's place was running the whole club on one Comcast line and they finally had to buy another one, not because of throughput but simply because one IP address could not support the number of unique sub net IPs they had on the LAN. Granted all of them were not streaming cat videos on Facebook but it was more than a few. Years ago when we wintered in Florida we had DSL because cable was not available. It worked ok but videos and HD media was not as popular and as heavily downloaded back then. When I opened the guitar shop in 2009 the building was not wired for cable so I had to get DSL again. That's when I really starting to notice the difference between the shop's DSL Internet speed and the speed of Comcast cable we had at the house. I used to update the shop's website daily and the program I used reloaded all of the website's content which would take forever on DSL. I ended up doing it at home after the shop closed. On cable the complete site would upload in less than 30 seconds. At the shop it sometimes took 5-10 minutes and often it would hang up and I'd have to start all over again. There is a difference, especially when more and more devices are added. Now with two or cell phones constantly connected, multiple computers, tablets, Smart TVs, etc., I can't see how DSL can be quick enough, but I don't have it anymore so I don't know. They are making DSL faster than it used to be. That is probably the difference. From what I can see it takes about 3mb to stream HD and that used to be fast DSL. Now I get a solid 10. We can stream 2 shows at once and I am still browsing. My problem with Comcast has always reliability. They are still running on the same "plant" Media One put in 20 years ago when 8mb was fast broadband. The speed is good if your neighbors are not banging it too hard since you are sharing the pipe but they are down a lot and not real responsive about fixing it. My wife used to fight with them about once a week and she had a commercial account plus 799 residential customers. I am not promoting Comcast by any means but the problems you cite must be somewhat unique to your area. Up here Comcast has been very reliable. Really can't remember the last time it was down for any length of time since we moved here 2 years ago. It might occasionally drop for a minute or two if Comcast is working on a distribution amplifier nearby but even that is very rare. It even has worked fine in a major ice/snowstorm last winter when we lost power for a few hours. Plugged the router, main cable box and a TV into the generator and everything was fine. |
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:01:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: First thing I do when I replace a shower head is remove the flow restrictor. Helps a little. Restrictors are fine for the sinks but not for the shower, IMO. My current house has a separate shower and tub. I wish the shower had the water supply the tub has. It must be fed with 3/4 inch pipe. When I need to refill the humidifier I can fill a gallon jug of water from the tub faucet in 10 seconds flat using cold water only. It's even faster if I use both hot and cold. Takes 60 seconds or more from the kitchen sink faucet. All of the new faucets and shower valves I have bought in the last 20 years are internally limited by the size of the passages and the cartridge., There is not much you can do about them. After bothering Price ****er about the kitchen faucet for a few weeks they sent me the "experimental" cartridge that was a little better but when it went bad there was no getting another one. If my wife was not so much of a "style" person I would have the old 2 handle faucet that moved 10 gallons a minute. The delta bathroom faucets have a 1/8" ID pipe feeding the spout. Not much you can do about that either. |
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:06:57 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote: Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about 60 channels with it. That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just too lazy to put it up yet. Digital TV has made the antenna thing a lot less rewarding. In Maryland I could get all of the DC stations with a coat hanger and if you had any decent antenna at all you got Baltimore as well as DC. With a rotor you could point it south and get Richmond (Important to my Ex when the skins games were blacked out) These days, with a deep fringe antenna and an amp I have trouble getting the Ft Myers stations 30 miles away. |
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:28:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 2/27/2018 5:13 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:49:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 1:17 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:36:00 -0600, amdx wrote: I have 30Mbps I often wonder how that translates to the real world. I had a lot of conversations with various tech support groups leading up to switching my web host and the problems that prompted that. The consensus was running a speed test to your ISPs test site was meaningless other than what the max is you can get. When you go to 3d party sites, that is a test of your servers and their servers but the real issue is what you can actually get when talking to a web site or other service. I know my news server is not even close to being able to keep my 10mb pipe full. I have also had times when Amazon was not able to keep a stream going without buffering, even tho I still had plenty of capacity on my end. (I could start a Netflix). It was just a new show on Prime and I am guessing they were slammed. That huge capacity may be good for multiple users hitting multiple byte hungry sites but I am not sure it is of a lot of value for 1 or 2 users. My wife's place was running the whole club on one Comcast line and they finally had to buy another one, not because of throughput but simply because one IP address could not support the number of unique sub net IPs they had on the LAN. Granted all of them were not streaming cat videos on Facebook but it was more than a few. Years ago when we wintered in Florida we had DSL because cable was not available. It worked ok but videos and HD media was not as popular and as heavily downloaded back then. When I opened the guitar shop in 2009 the building was not wired for cable so I had to get DSL again. That's when I really starting to notice the difference between the shop's DSL Internet speed and the speed of Comcast cable we had at the house. I used to update the shop's website daily and the program I used reloaded all of the website's content which would take forever on DSL. I ended up doing it at home after the shop closed. On cable the complete site would upload in less than 30 seconds. At the shop it sometimes took 5-10 minutes and often it would hang up and I'd have to start all over again. There is a difference, especially when more and more devices are added. Now with two or cell phones constantly connected, multiple computers, tablets, Smart TVs, etc., I can't see how DSL can be quick enough, but I don't have it anymore so I don't know. They are making DSL faster than it used to be. That is probably the difference. From what I can see it takes about 3mb to stream HD and that used to be fast DSL. Now I get a solid 10. We can stream 2 shows at once and I am still browsing. My problem with Comcast has always reliability. They are still running on the same "plant" Media One put in 20 years ago when 8mb was fast broadband. The speed is good if your neighbors are not banging it too hard since you are sharing the pipe but they are down a lot and not real responsive about fixing it. My wife used to fight with them about once a week and she had a commercial account plus 799 residential customers. I am not promoting Comcast by any means but the problems you cite must be somewhat unique to your area. Up here Comcast has been very reliable. Really can't remember the last time it was down for any length of time since we moved here 2 years ago. It might occasionally drop for a minute or two if Comcast is working on a distribution amplifier nearby but even that is very rare. It even has worked fine in a major ice/snowstorm last winter when we lost power for a few hours. Plugged he router, main cable box and a TV into the generator and everything was fine. I understand Comcast works well up north but they suck here. They bought out the local company and never bothered to upgrade any equipment. This is from my Comcast neighbor. He worked for South Florida Cable and then Media one before Comcast bought them. +e only seem to upgrade when something breaks. |
Amazon prime TV
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/27/2018 5:06 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote: John H. Wrote in message: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:08:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 12:57 PM, amdx wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/26/2018 12:38 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:35:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 12:26 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:52:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:34 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:26:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:18 AM, wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:00:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 7:48 AM, justan wrote: "Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message: On 2/25/2018 10:33 PM, wrote: I am really serious about cutting the cord. My wife says after the olympics but that was today. I am already transitioning to streaming, I am working my way through the Amazon Prime documentaries They have just about anything that PBS ever aired. I talked about the American Experience show about the MLK assassination the other day. Today I am watching Frontline season 27 ep 8. This is contemporary with the 2009 crash and it is pretty interesting, carving through some of the myths we may have. I occasionally watch something from Amazon Prime's inventory. My large HD TV is not "smart" (connected to the Internet) so I use the Sony PS4 to stream stuff from Amazon. Their prime account entitles you to many movies and archived shows as you mention for free. I can also access Hulu, Netfix and other sources but I don't watch enough to bother with them. Smart tvs are cheap nowadays. I paid 800 for a 60 inch smart plasma tv at good old Walmart. A side benefit is that I can heat the house with it. Mine can become "smart" if I buy a Roku wireless streaming stick that plugs into the TV's USB port. It's a 65" and I bought it before having Internet connectivity became built-in on most TVs. Accessing the 'net via the PS4 is just as effective and it works fine. I just don't watch TV enough to warrant buying another TV just for built-in Internet connectivity. Most of the time I just use a little 23" HD TV that sits on my desk beside my computer monitor. Just hook an old PC to it. With a 2.4gz wireless mouse you end up with a TV that is a whole lot smarter than the ones sold as smart. We have both here. The PC connected wins every time in every category. The best combo seems to be my "travel" laptop connected to some no name TV. When the lap top turns off the TV goes to sleep and I have it set to hibernate when you close the lid. Open the lid, the pc comes to life and the TV comes on. You can get to any streaming service that way along with being able to play music or look at your pictures using whatever PC app you like. I don't collect or save old PCs. When they crap out or become so obsolete they can't run current apps efficiently I buy a new one. I "do" have an older Win 7 laptop that I no longer use regularly but I keep it as a backup or possible traveling computer. Somewhere I have an old XP laptop as well but it is painfully slow compared to Win 7 and Win 10. I wouldn't even bother with it. Besides, the little Roku thingy is much smaller and easier to mess with. I still don't really understand how people who want to get rid of services like Comcast cable TV and Internet and go to streaming only are going to have access to the Internet. I think I posted the results of the tests I did that compared download speeds of AT&T's 4G WiFi service that I have in my truck and the download speeds of the Comcast (cable) WiFi router in my house. Comcast was consistently 3 to 4 times faster, sometimes even more. The AT&T test (I did several for each) often reported that although web browsing would be ok, videos may be slow, especially if more than one device was connected to the WiFi server. The Comcast speed report consistently said that it's speed would allow web browsing and HD video downloads to several devices at the same time. For me, cutting the cord would be cutting the TV and telephone cords. The internet cord would stay whole. The TV cord is over $100/month, and that's without a bunch of movie channels. The telephone cord is another $40/month. How much is your Internet service? I don't have that problem. I have just have what's called "expanded basic TV". I can always order something "On Demand" but I can't remember the last time I did. Forget what it costs but it's cheap compared to the Internet service. I don't have phone service via cable. Just use my cell phone. It's a second account on her cell phone service and compared to her cell phone bill, mine contribution to it is peanuts. I pay $55 for internet. Ok. I pay a little less ... $49/month. The AT&T WiFi in the truck is $20/mo. for unlimited service but it's not anywhere near as fast. I may cancel it. Don't really know why I even got it. I have buddy the recently switched from Comcast to WOW, because Comcast wouldn't negotiate their price. Wow gave him internet for $39.99. He recommended Wow to a friend and the friend got the same 100Mbps service for $29.99. My buddy was a bit perplexed! Mikek The problem is that WOW isn't available in many places. In many areas Comcast is the only game in town. We now have a choice of Verizon or Cox. I've been with Cox since early 90's, but just about every year my bill jumps up $40-$50, sometimes more. And then I call, argue for an hour, threaten to go to Verizon, and my bill stays around $150-160, with 'promotions'. In September all my promotions run out and the lady says my bill would go to $240. We'll see how many promotions I can qualify for in September. Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about 60 channels with it. That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just too lazy to put it up yet. I was really surprised how many digital channels (many in HD) were available when I set up a TV and a cheap, rabbit ear antenna in the "barn" garage at our previous house. We were well outside of the recommended range being almost 40 miles south of Boston and even further from Providence, RI, yet still got 50-60 channels. I tried a couple of antenna types and the best one had a built-in RF amplifier. It was only about $19. Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. |
Amazon prime TV
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/27/2018 5:13 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:49:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 1:17 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:36:00 -0600, amdx wrote: I have 30Mbps I often wonder how that translates to the real world. I had a lot of conversations with various tech support groups leading up to switching my web host and the problems that prompted that. The consensus was running a speed test to your ISPs test site was meaningless other than what the max is you can get. When you go to 3d party sites, that is a test of your servers and their servers but the real issue is what you can actually get when talking to a web site or other service. I know my news server is not even close to being able to keep my 10mb pipe full. I have also had times when Amazon was not able to keep a stream going without buffering, even tho I still had plenty of capacity on my end. (I could start a Netflix). It was just a new show on Prime and I am guessing they were slammed. That huge capacity may be good for multiple users hitting multiple byte hungry sites but I am not sure it is of a lot of value for 1 or 2 users. My wife's place was running the whole club on one Comcast line and they finally had to buy another one, not because of throughput but simply because one IP address could not support the number of unique sub net IPs they had on the LAN. Granted all of them were not streaming cat videos on Facebook but it was more than a few. Years ago when we wintered in Florida we had DSL because cable was not available. It worked ok but videos and HD media was not as popular and as heavily downloaded back then. When I opened the guitar shop in 2009 the building was not wired for cable so I had to get DSL again. That's when I really starting to notice the difference between the shop's DSL Internet speed and the speed of Comcast cable we had at the house. I used to update the shop's website daily and the program I used reloaded all of the website's content which would take forever on DSL. I ended up doing it at home after the shop closed. On cable the complete site would upload in less than 30 seconds. At the shop it sometimes took 5-10 minutes and often it would hang up and I'd have to start all over again. There is a difference, especially when more and more devices are added. Now with two or cell phones constantly connected, multiple computers, tablets, Smart TVs, etc., I can't see how DSL can be quick enough, but I don't have it anymore so I don't know. They are making DSL faster than it used to be. That is probably the difference. From what I can see it takes about 3mb to stream HD and that used to be fast DSL. Now I get a solid 10. We can stream 2 shows at once and I am still browsing. My problem with Comcast has always reliability. They are still running on the same "plant" Media One put in 20 years ago when 8mb was fast broadband. The speed is good if your neighbors are not banging it too hard since you are sharing the pipe but they are down a lot and not real responsive about fixing it. My wife used to fight with them about once a week and she had a commercial account plus 799 residential customers. I am not promoting Comcast by any means but the problems you cite must be somewhat unique to your area. Up here Comcast has been very reliable. Really can't remember the last time it was down for any length of time since we moved here 2 years ago. It might occasionally drop for a minute or two if Comcast is working on a distribution amplifier nearby but even that is very rare. It even has worked fine in a major ice/snowstorm last winter when we lost power for a few hours. Plugged the router, main cable box and a TV into the generator and everything was fine. Comcast here seems reliable. We had some of the first cable in California, about 10 years ago it was all replaced. So good cable. |
Amazon prime TV
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna |
Amazon prime TV
On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. |
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:21:42 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:58:54 -0600, amdx wrote: Now a days, you need to carry a pair of channel locks and your favorite shower head. Just don't forget it when you leave. Mikek That seems to be true everywhere but Northern California. This was Tahoe (Squaw Valley Resort) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...strictions.jpg OTOH right around the corner in Tioga Pass they lock up the water. http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...he%20Water.jpg === That's common on docks in the Bahamas and Caribbean. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Amazon prime TV
|
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:37:57 -0800 (PST), Its Me
wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. It is the RG6 that the satellite company uses. Originally I had a run of fresh RG6 I got from Comcast (I have a spool from my neighbor) and I thought that might be bad. When I sent one of my sat boxes back I switched over to that cable. No change. The amp is right up next to the antenna. Without the amp it really sux. I understand 300 ohm foam twinlead is probably the best but that is hard to come by and the antenna is set up for coax, as is the TV. |
Amazon prime TV
|
Amazon prime TV
On 2/27/2018 8:37 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/27/2018 5:06 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote: John H. Wrote in message: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:08:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 12:57 PM, amdx wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/26/2018 12:38 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:35:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 12:26 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:52:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:34 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:26:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 11:18 AM, wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:00:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/26/2018 7:48 AM, justan wrote: "Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message: On 2/25/2018 10:33 PM, wrote: I am really serious about cutting the cord. My wife says after the olympics but that was today. I am already transitioning to streaming, I am working my way through the Amazon Prime documentaries They have just about anything that PBS ever aired. I talked about the American Experience show about the MLK assassination the other day. Today I am watching Frontline season 27 ep 8. This is contemporary with the 2009 crash and it is pretty interesting, carving through some of the myths we may have. I occasionally watch something from Amazon Prime's inventory. My large HD TV is not "smart" (connected to the Internet) so I use the Sony PS4 to stream stuff from Amazon. Their prime account entitles you to many movies and archived shows as you mention for free. I can also access Hulu, Netfix and other sources but I don't watch enough to bother with them. Smart tvs are cheap nowadays. I paid 800 for a 60 inch smart plasma tv at good old Walmart. A side benefit is that I can heat the house with it. Mine can become "smart" if I buy a Roku wireless streaming stick that plugs into the TV's USB port. It's a 65" and I bought it before having Internet connectivity became built-in on most TVs. Accessing the 'net via the PS4 is just as effective and it works fine. I just don't watch TV enough to warrant buying another TV just for built-in Internet connectivity. Most of the time I just use a little 23" HD TV that sits on my desk beside my computer monitor. Just hook an old PC to it. With a 2.4gz wireless mouse you end up with a TV that is a whole lot smarter than the ones sold as smart. We have both here. The PC connected wins every time in every category. The best combo seems to be my "travel" laptop connected to some no name TV. When the lap top turns off the TV goes to sleep and I have it set to hibernate when you close the lid. Open the lid, the pc comes to life and the TV comes on. You can get to any streaming service that way along with being able to play music or look at your pictures using whatever PC app you like. I don't collect or save old PCs. When they crap out or become so obsolete they can't run current apps efficiently I buy a new one. I "do" have an older Win 7 laptop that I no longer use regularly but I keep it as a backup or possible traveling computer. Somewhere I have an old XP laptop as well but it is painfully slow compared to Win 7 and Win 10. I wouldn't even bother with it. Besides, the little Roku thingy is much smaller and easier to mess with. I still don't really understand how people who want to get rid of services like Comcast cable TV and Internet and go to streaming only are going to have access to the Internet. I think I posted the results of the tests I did that compared download speeds of AT&T's 4G WiFi service that I have in my truck and the download speeds of the Comcast (cable) WiFi router in my house. Comcast was consistently 3 to 4 times faster, sometimes even more. The AT&T test (I did several for each) often reported that although web browsing would be ok, videos may be slow, especially if more than one device was connected to the WiFi server. The Comcast speed report consistently said that it's speed would allow web browsing and HD video downloads to several devices at the same time. For me, cutting the cord would be cutting the TV and telephone cords. The internet cord would stay whole. The TV cord is over $100/month, and that's without a bunch of movie channels. The telephone cord is another $40/month. How much is your Internet service? I don't have that problem. I have just have what's called "expanded basic TV". I can always order something "On Demand" but I can't remember the last time I did. Forget what it costs but it's cheap compared to the Internet service. I don't have phone service via cable. Just use my cell phone. It's a second account on her cell phone service and compared to her cell phone bill, mine contribution to it is peanuts. I pay $55 for internet. Ok. I pay a little less ... $49/month. The AT&T WiFi in the truck is $20/mo. for unlimited service but it's not anywhere near as fast. I may cancel it. Don't really know why I even got it. I have buddy the recently switched from Comcast to WOW, because Comcast wouldn't negotiate their price. Wow gave him internet for $39.99. He recommended Wow to a friend and the friend got the same 100Mbps service for $29.99. My buddy was a bit perplexed! Mikek The problem is that WOW isn't available in many places. In many areas Comcast is the only game in town. We now have a choice of Verizon or Cox. I've been with Cox since early 90's, but just about every year my bill jumps up $40-$50, sometimes more. And then I call, argue for an hour, threaten to go to Verizon, and my bill stays around $150-160, with 'promotions'. In September all my promotions run out and the lady says my bill would go to $240. We'll see how many promotions I can qualify for in September. Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about 60 channels with it. That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just too lazy to put it up yet. I was really surprised how many digital channels (many in HD) were available when I set up a TV and a cheap, rabbit ear antenna in the "barn" garage at our previous house. We were well outside of the recommended range being almost 40 miles south of Boston and even further from Providence, RI, yet still got 50-60 channels. I tried a couple of antenna types and the best one had a built-in RF amplifier. It was only about $19. Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. Yep, that will do it. |
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:38:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 2/27/2018 7:23 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:01:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: First thing I do when I replace a shower head is remove the flow restrictor. Helps a little. Restrictors are fine for the sinks but not for the shower, IMO. My current house has a separate shower and tub. I wish the shower had the water supply the tub has. It must be fed with 3/4 inch pipe. When I need to refill the humidifier I can fill a gallon jug of water from the tub faucet in 10 seconds flat using cold water only. It's even faster if I use both hot and cold. Takes 60 seconds or more from the kitchen sink faucet. All of the new faucets and shower valves I have bought in the last 20 years are internally limited by the size of the passages and the cartridge., There is not much you can do about them. After bothering Price ****er about the kitchen faucet for a few weeks they sent me the "experimental" cartridge that was a little better but when it went bad there was no getting another one. If my wife was not so much of a "style" person I would have the old 2 handle faucet that moved 10 gallons a minute. The delta bathroom faucets have a 1/8" ID pipe feeding the spout. Not much you can do about that either. I like lots of water in the shower. I just keep them short. When we were in Florida one of the houses we had was fantastic for water flow in the shower. The guy we bought it from had modified the plumbing and had the pressure on the pump accumulator set at 100 psig. Shower water would almost knock you over. He did it mainly because when he built the helicopter hanger he put a huge shower in it with multiple shower heads. It was really nice. In the master shower I hooked the shower up to the tub spout output from the valve (not covered by the regulations) and put in a drilled out head. You can get wet in there ;-) |
Amazon prime TV
|
Amazon prime TV
On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for. Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. |
Amazon prime TV
|
Amazon prime TV
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:59:23 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 2/27/2018 7:29 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:06:57 -0500, John H. wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote: Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about 60 channels with it. That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just too lazy to put it up yet. Digital TV has made the antenna thing a lot less rewarding. In Maryland I could get all of the DC stations with a coat hanger and if you had any decent antenna at all you got Baltimore as well as DC. With a rotor you could point it south and get Richmond (Important to my Ex when the skins games were blacked out) These days, with a deep fringe antenna and an amp I have trouble getting the Ft Myers stations 30 miles away. Weird. I posted this before but I could get 50-60 digital channels with a simple rabbit ear antenna set (amplified) in the house in Duxbury. I imagine your area is flatter than we are so I am surprised you have such poor reception. We were about 40 miles south of Boston, definitely in a fringe area and not all would stay "locked" in but the main ones worked fine in HD. Nice thing about digital is that you either "get it" or you don't. The days of snowy pictures are gone. Got all of the major network channels from Boston and Providence including the sub channels. Channel 5 also had programing on 5.1 and 5.2. Same with channel 4 which also had 4.1, 7 also has 7.1 etc. Also got some of the former UHF channels. Some of the off beat programming were old classics like Perry Mason, Columbo and the Rockwood Files. One even had the old Jackie Gleason Honeymooners series, the original Superman series and many more really old ones. Dunno, the only thing that makes any sense at all is I have a big live oak right in the LOS. I did not think that would screw up the signal tho. I have it hanging on the same bracket as the satellite and I may move it when that goes away. I am just not sure I can get away from all of the trees. |
Amazon prime TV
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:09:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 2/27/2018 9:12 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna Your situation may be due to the station's transmitter antenna location and it's radiated lobe pattern. They may intentionally not be transmitting much power out over the ocean, focusing it more inland to populated areas. I got good digital reception in a more challenging terrain and the amplified rabbit ears antenna was in the garage, about six feet above the floor. I was on a bit of a hill, but not that high above sea level. I am pretty much directly south of the towers and that is parallel to the coast. If they want to get to Bonita and Naples, they have to go through me. |
Amazon prime TV
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:15:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for. Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. This is the setup and that distance is 26 miles. (not sure why google does not save the ruler when you save the picture) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Antenna.jpg |
Amazon prime TV
On 2/28/2018 1:57 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:15:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for. Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. This is the setup and that distance is 26 miles. (not sure why google does not save the ruler when you save the picture) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Antenna.jpg Strange. At 26 miles as the crow flies you should get very good reception with the antenna you described, trees or no trees. The TV I used in the garage with the rabbit ears had a signal strength meter in the setup and I could peg it when I adjusted the antenna for Boston station. Most of the stations that were viewable registered "70" out of 100. I remember if the signal strength dropped to under 60 I'd get drop outs sometimes. We were surrounded by big trees as well and they didn't present a problem. I wonder if your stations are utilizing the maximum power authorized by the FCC or if there's a restriction. Doesn't make sense. |
Amazon prime TV
On 2/28/2018 1:57 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:15:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for. Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. This is the setup and that distance is 26 miles. (not sure why google does not save the ruler when you save the picture) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Antenna.jpg Greg, I was just thinking about something. Don't know exactly what type of antenna you are using but maybe it was designed primarily for the old VHF frequencies that analog TV used. Most of the digital broadcasts are now on UHF. Unless your antenna is designed to receive UHF freqs, that may be part of your problem. |
Amazon prime TV
On 2/28/2018 12:57 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:15:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for. Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. This is the setup and that distance is 26 miles. (not sure why google does not save the ruler when you save the picture) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Antenna.jpg Have you tried TV Fool? I don't know your exact location but I used Estero and got a map that shows you have useful stations in three directions. Your antenna is directional enough that you may need to rotate it to get a strong signal in the other two directions. http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...382b41e2ae7 c Start here with your address, http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?opti...pper&Itemid=29 For even more info start at the home page. http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?opti...page&Itemid=75 Mikek |
Amazon prime TV
On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 11:58:41 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:37:57 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. It is the RG6 that the satellite company uses. Originally I had a run of fresh RG6 I got from Comcast (I have a spool from my neighbor) and I thought that might be bad. When I sent one of my sat boxes back I switched over to that cable. No change. The amp is right up next to the antenna. Without the amp it really sux. I understand 300 ohm foam twinlead is probably the best but that is hard to come by and the antenna is set up for coax, as is the TV. RG6 is the good stuff, at least for TVs. The twinlead would be better, but it's such a pain to install properly with all the standoffs, etc. Tape it to a metal mast and you're losing it's advantage. Sounds like you're just in a dead spot. |
Amazon prime TV
On 2/28/18 8:23 AM, amdx wrote:
On 2/28/2018 12:57 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:15:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley.Â*Â* I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable?Â* You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem.Â* The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for.Â* Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. This is the setup and that distance is 26 miles. (not sure why google does not save the ruler when you save the picture) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Antenna.jpg Â*Have you tried TV Fool? Isn't that where you righties get your news? |
Amazon prime TV
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 07:05:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 2/28/2018 1:57 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:15:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for. Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. This is the setup and that distance is 26 miles. (not sure why google does not save the ruler when you save the picture) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Antenna.jpg Greg, I was just thinking about something. Don't know exactly what type of antenna you are using but maybe it was designed primarily for the old VHF frequencies that analog TV used. Most of the digital broadcasts are now on UHF. Unless your antenna is designed to receive UHF freqs, that may be part of your problem. It says UHF/VHF Digital. I am starting to wonder if another antenna is in my future myself. This really does not make any sense to me either. I may try moving it away from the tree first since the canopy is right there. |
Amazon prime TV
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 07:23:05 -0600, amdx wrote:
On 2/28/2018 12:57 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:15:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for. Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. This is the setup and that distance is 26 miles. (not sure why google does not save the ruler when you save the picture) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Antenna.jpg Have you tried TV Fool? I don't know your exact location but I used Estero and got a map that shows you have useful stations in three directions. Your antenna is directional enough that you may need to rotate it to get a strong signal in the other two directions. http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...382b41e2ae7 c Start here with your address, http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?opti...pper&Itemid=29 For even more info start at the home page. http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?opti...page&Itemid=75 Mikek I really only care about the 2 towers to the north. The Naples station is en espanol. Not sure about the one in Burrito Springs/Immokalee but I can guess. |
Amazon prime TV
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:15:32 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. That's why I asked what kind of cable and how long. RG-6 can have upward of 6dB of loss per 100ft at upper UHF freqs, while the old RG-58 would be up around 16dB of loss. There's also loss at each connection point. As you point out, the signal is either on of off with digital TV, and UHF doesn't have long legs. |
Amazon prime TV
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 11:01:31 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 07:05:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/28/2018 1:57 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:15:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for. Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. This is the setup and that distance is 26 miles. (not sure why google does not save the ruler when you save the picture) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Antenna.jpg Greg, I was just thinking about something. Don't know exactly what type of antenna you are using but maybe it was designed primarily for the old VHF frequencies that analog TV used. Most of the digital broadcasts are now on UHF. Unless your antenna is designed to receive UHF freqs, that may be part of your problem. It says UHF/VHF Digital. I am starting to wonder if another antenna is in my future myself. This really does not make any sense to me either. I may try moving it away from the tree first since the canopy is right there. You can get a better performing antenna, but don't rule out your amp. It could be defective and just not doing well at the upper UHF freqs. It have to cover a pretty broad band. |
Amazon prime TV
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:30:54 -0800 (PST), Its Me
wrote: On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:15:32 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. That's why I asked what kind of cable and how long. RG-6 can have upward of 6dB of loss per 100ft at upper UHF freqs, while the old RG-58 would be up around 16dB of loss. There's also loss at each connection point. As you point out, the signal is either on of off with digital TV, and UHF doesn't have long legs. The cable is less than 50' |
Amazon prime TV
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:33:20 -0800 (PST), Its Me
wrote: On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 11:01:31 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 07:05:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/28/2018 1:57 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:15:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for. Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. This is the setup and that distance is 26 miles. (not sure why google does not save the ruler when you save the picture) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Antenna.jpg Greg, I was just thinking about something. Don't know exactly what type of antenna you are using but maybe it was designed primarily for the old VHF frequencies that analog TV used. Most of the digital broadcasts are now on UHF. Unless your antenna is designed to receive UHF freqs, that may be part of your problem. It says UHF/VHF Digital. I am starting to wonder if another antenna is in my future myself. This really does not make any sense to me either. I may try moving it away from the tree first since the canopy is right there. You can get a better performing antenna, but don't rule out your amp. It could be defective and just not doing well at the upper UHF freqs. It have to cover a pretty broad band. This is the second amp I tried. I had one before and I thought it might be bad so I got a new one. |
Amazon prime TV
|
Amazon prime TV
On 2/28/2018 11:57 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:33:20 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote: On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 11:01:31 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 07:05:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/28/2018 1:57 AM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:15:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 10:37 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:37:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Our problem is we are in a valley. I am about 140’ above the valley floor, but still the hills limit a lot of signals. I am not sure why OTA sucks so bad here. OI am 30 miles from the towers and it is flat ground. Looking down the line on Google I don't even see any big buildings, just trees. I do have one big live oak right here. The antenna is 25 feet off the ground and I am afraid to stick a lightning rod up much higher. I am running this, with an amp http://www.newark.com/stellar-labs/30-2440/vhf-uhf-hdtv-60-mile-fringe-yagi/dp/88W2140?st=UHF%20antenna How long is the cable coming down from the antenna, and what kind of cable? You get a lot of loss in that cable. I kinda doubt that's his problem. The RF amp will more than make up for any losses and actually there isn't much signal loss in the RF signal cable anyway unless he has miles of it. I think it's more an issue of where the transmitter's antenna radiation pattern has been optimized for. Greg is near the ocean and there's not much point of the station wasting signal power out over the water. This is the setup and that distance is 26 miles. (not sure why google does not save the ruler when you save the picture) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Antenna.jpg Greg, I was just thinking about something. Don't know exactly what type of antenna you are using but maybe it was designed primarily for the old VHF frequencies that analog TV used. Most of the digital broadcasts are now on UHF. Unless your antenna is designed to receive UHF freqs, that may be part of your problem. It says UHF/VHF Digital. I am starting to wonder if another antenna is in my future myself. This really does not make any sense to me either. I may try moving it away from the tree first since the canopy is right there. You can get a better performing antenna, but don't rule out your amp. It could be defective and just not doing well at the upper UHF freqs. It have to cover a pretty broad band. This is the second amp I tried. I had one before and I thought it might be bad so I got a new one. Greg, If I were you I'd go to Walmart or Best Buy and buy a cheap, amplified set of rabbit ears and try them before going to the trouble of moving your current antenna around. I think you will be surprised. Should only cost anywhere from $19 to $29 bucks. Just make sure the amp is built into the antenna itself. My brother, who lives 55 miles south of Boston, set up a TV and the set of amplified rabbit ears I gave him in his shed. The antenna is sitting on the shed rafters, about 7 feet high. He gets the three major networks in Boston in HD with no problem along with a few other stations. Was happy because he could go out to the shed to watch the Patriots games. |
Amazon prime TV
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:47:56 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:59:23 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/27/2018 7:29 PM, wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:06:57 -0500, John H. wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:59 -0500 (EST), justan wrote: Thst's too much to pay for tv. Our fiber cable and internet is free, but I put up a small OTA emergency antenna and I get about 60 channels with it. That's for everything. If I don't get the discounts I may try an outdoor antenna. I've got one, just too lazy to put it up yet. Digital TV has made the antenna thing a lot less rewarding. In Maryland I could get all of the DC stations with a coat hanger and if you had any decent antenna at all you got Baltimore as well as DC. With a rotor you could point it south and get Richmond (Important to my Ex when the skins games were blacked out) These days, with a deep fringe antenna and an amp I have trouble getting the Ft Myers stations 30 miles away. Weird. I posted this before but I could get 50-60 digital channels with a simple rabbit ear antenna set (amplified) in the house in Duxbury. I imagine your area is flatter than we are so I am surprised you have such poor reception. We were about 40 miles south of Boston, definitely in a fringe area and not all would stay "locked" in but the main ones worked fine in HD. Nice thing about digital is that you either "get it" or you don't. The days of snowy pictures are gone. Got all of the major network channels from Boston and Providence including the sub channels. Channel 5 also had programing on 5.1 and 5.2. Same with channel 4 which also had 4.1, 7 also has 7.1 etc. Also got some of the former UHF channels. Some of the off beat programming were old classics like Perry Mason, Columbo and the Rockwood Files. One even had the old Jackie Gleason Honeymooners series, the original Superman series and many more really old ones. Dunno, the only thing that makes any sense at all is I have a big live oak right in the LOS. I did not think that would screw up the signal tho. I have it hanging on the same bracket as the satellite and I may move it when that goes away. I am just not sure I can get away from all of the trees. === I think the tree is most likely your issue. Those towers out there on rt 31 are huge and should easily provide a 30 mile range with good signal strength. Any chance you can move the antenna off to the side and look around the side of it, or put the antenna in the tree up near the top? If all else fails they have this new fangled invention called cable tv. :-) --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com