Free TV for life? Android box

[observor 69]

Anyone had any experience with or thoughts on this new way of getting viewing content.


Free TV for life? It's here, and it may even be legal

Loaded Android box promises TV shows and movies with no monthly bill

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/android-box-streaming-1.3455524

 

[MJP]

Anyone had any experience with or thoughts on this new way of getting viewing content.


Free TV for life? It's here, and it may even be legal

Loaded Android box promises TV shows and movies with no monthly bill

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/android-box-streaming-1.3455524

I have one and love it. Can't remember what model I have off hand. But can post it later.

It is based KODI media player which  use to be on XBox as XBMC.  Technically KODI can be loaded onto your laptop and you could stream that way or through HDMI or bluetooth to your tv so no need to spend money on a box per se.

 

[runormal]

My friends parents have one and my uncle has one. They are pretty slick.

From what I understand is that it is literally just a library of stream links, and that the benefits are is that it saves the guess work of finding good streams as well it doesn't tie up a laptop to stream.

I can't see these working "forever"as after awhile there is no incentive for anyone to update dead links, that being said people have been streaming since at least 2006 and it seems to be " Stable" and streams seem to be easier to find with less bs. . :dunno:

But If no pays for anything how do we get new and good content? It'll meet in the middle somewhere I reckon.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I've been using one for about four or five years. We started out by breaking and reloading Apple 2 boxes. Now I am using M8 boxes. They come in at under $100 and allow you to stream movies & music, watch sports, etc. Not quite free TV as you have to pay for internet. Around Academy Award time, the studios send out screener discs to it's members to vote on the movies that are coming up. These always seem to hit the servers within a few days of their release. I've watched movies that haven't even made it to theaters yet.

XBMC is not quite done, but has been replaced by TVAddons, still Kodi based though. As for your computer, laptop, some tablets or some phones, you can download it for free and watch it on those mediums also. Try it that way first and see how you like it then get a box for your TV.

 

[GR66]

What about live sports?  That's always been one of the arguments I've heard about cutting the cable cord...NHL, NFL, CFL, etc. as well a special events like the Olympics.

 

[observor 69]

So finally managed to download KODI onto my laptop after many " blocked... unsafe, ..site ... danger danger"
Am now working my way through to understand how to get from KODI to movies etc.  :-\
Thanks for the help.... I think  :nod:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just go here. https://www.tvaddons.ag/ Pick your operating system and the site will walk you through the whole thing.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What about live sports?  That's always been one of the arguments I've heard about cutting the cable cord...NHL, NFL, CFL, etc. as well a special events like the Olympics.

There is a live sport extension that you can add to the system. I'm not into sports on TV so I haven't tried it.

 

[PuckChaser]

I don't have KODI, but I know for London 2010 they had an excellent live stream of all events online for free.

 

[opcougar]

"Free TV"....right.

Skip the illegal bull****. If NOBODY pays for TV, who is going to make free TVs and movies? Who is going to pay actors what money when there is no revenue? There is a difference in HOW you get your content and the cable company is only HOW you get your content, they don't own the content. Bulk purchases of content are paid for and distributed by cable/telcos. You pay for the organization, distribution and the rights to view that content. The bulk purchases make channels you don't want affordable for others and vice-versa. The purchasing of content is the only reason why there is content available to be stolen/hijacked/leeched or whatever.

This is what will happen. People will be allowed to order channels a la carte. Then all the smaller niche channels will die. People will order channels in their originating countries language and only sports channels then Canadian channels will die. The price of specialty channels will increase as will internet costs because someone has to pay for the network costs. The price of online channels will go up as the content owners attempt to recover revenue and then they will go after people with streaming boxes stealing their content. They will try to bundle their content and get rejected for the price increase. Smaller niche providers of premium content will die.

1. Everybody thinks they will cut out the **** channels and they will go away and die while they save money,
2. They don't realize not everybody is interested in the channels they like and their channels will be on the list and die.
3. Not paying for content at all will accelerate the above process.
4. Like I said, we will be left with little bits and pieces which is fine by some and not by others.

One final note. People are willing to put up with finicky boxes, switching inputs, occasional jittery pics and they compare it to a smoother paid for service and it really shouldn't be. Ooma goes down for two hours, it is an inconvenience. You Bell service that has been on for three decades goes down for 10 minutes and it's all over Twitter.

I'm not telling anybody to do or not to do anything. Just the reality of taking from the large faceless entity. Someone owns that content. It is available because someone paid or is paying for that content. Bulk purchasing makes all types of content available as a cost that may be more affordable in the long run and many companies operate like this. At Mc D's, you make your money on the fries and drinks. If people came in and bought the meat off the hamburgers and used the washroom only, they'd go under...unless they raise the price of the meat patties.

I don't own or produce content, bit it seems illogical that nobody understands (or maybe they just don't want to understand) that it is not sustainable to get content in this manner.

 

[captloadie]

While I see the validity of parts of your argument, I don't think you have taken into account the amount of content that is being produced outside the mainstream producers.

Netflix and Hulu both have very good original content, and carry almost everything I want to watch. Yes, I still pay for some content, but it is exponentially cheaper than my old cable bill. I use a Roku 3, and there are hundreds of free "channels" for most specialty veiwing, whether it be hunting, MMA, Religion, xtreme sports, etc. There will alway be advertisers willing to pay for program production, and I actually think there will be more specialty programming, not less, because you no longer need to pitch your idea to a network for a finite number of slots.

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually, I'm tending to side with opcougar on this one.

Every man is worthy of his hire.  And that includes actors, musicians and even journalists.  I like free stuff.

But if everything is free then nothing will be produced. 


A couple of days ago I saw somebody post a picture on social media "plant food not lawns - if everybody planted food then I could trade my potatoes for your tomatoes".  It was a Bernie site.

My thoughts were along the lines of: "How many potatoes will you give me for a stool?"  Conversely would they give me their potatoes just because I really needed them?

Money is so convenient.  I enjoy convenience.  Lots and lots of it.

 

[captloadie]

I agree with the argument that someone needs to pay the actors, production staff, shareholders, etc. I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily need to be the end users in the traditional method. I grew up with no cable, only OTA. So for me, paying for something that used to be always free seemed odd.

What we need in this discussion is some factual info on how much money are the networks losing? Most people who are cutting the cord are doing so to get away from Bell/Rogers/Shaw, and their inflated ever increasing charges. How much of what they are collecting is being kicked back to the networks and content creators?

 

[Kirkhill]

Why would it not be the end users who pay? 

Who else is going to pay and donate it?

 

[opcougar]

Yet you have no qualms paying Netflix Hulu and streaming through repositories using KODI, which as far as you are concerned is free beacuse it has always been free because the movies and songs available just happen to make themselves available.

"cutting the cord" is a myth, as all you are doing is re-diversifying your monthly payments. I mean is your internet and cell phone(s) bills free?

I agree with the argument that someone needs to pay the actors, production staff, shareholders, etc. I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily need to be the end users in the traditional method. I grew up with no cable, only OTA. So for me, paying for something that used to be always free seemed odd.

What we need in this discussion is some factual info on how much money are the networks losing? Most people who are cutting the cord are doing so to get away from Bell/Rogers/Shaw, and their inflated ever increasing charges. How much of what they are collecting is being kicked back to the networks and content creators?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I agree with the argument that someone needs to pay the actors, production staff, shareholders, etc. I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily need to be the end users in the traditional method. I grew up with no cable, only OTA. So for me, paying for something that used to be always free seemed odd.

What we need in this discussion is some factual info on how much money are the networks losing? Most people who are cutting the cord are doing so to get away from Bell/Rogers/Shaw, and their inflated ever increasing charges. How much of what they are collecting is being kicked back to the networks and content creators?

You are either stealing content, or you are not.  The network loss/profit does not enter into that moral equation - it merely serves as a means of assuaging feelings of culpability.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You are either stealing content, or you are not.  The network loss/profit does not enter into that moral equation - it merely serves as a means of assuaging feelings of culpability.

Steaming video or music is not illegal. People with Android boxes, and such, are doing nothing illegal. It has been explained through the internet and other media.

It only becomes illegal when you download, store and reuse. Like burning a DVD or copying a VHS.

Using the box is no different than when I use my digital antennae to watch the 46 stations I can pull out of the air for free. How am I paying actors, production fees, advertisement, etc?

I'm not, and it's been legal since the advent of TV and radio stations.

For any that want to go that far back, were you breaking the law when you tuned into Radio Caroline, Radio Luxembourg or Radio Veronica? No you weren't, and it's the same for internet streaming.

 

[Kirkhill]

Recceguy:

Just because it is legal, or even not illegal, doesn't change the fact that you are receiving goods/services from someone who expected to be paid and is not.

The ring went to the pawnshop.  I bought the ring.  Did the person that brought the ring to the pawnshop have a right to sell it?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Recceguy:

Just because it is legal, or even not illegal, doesn't change the fact that you are receiving goods/services from someone who expected to be paid and is not.

The ring went to the pawnshop.  I bought the ring.  Did the person that brought the ring to the pawnshop have a right to sell it?

So what is the difference between that and over the air (OtA) television programs? People have been watching it, free of charge, since the advent of the phosphor tube. No obligations. Turn on the TV and enjoy. No payment required. And before someone brings up commercials, plenty of that OtA programming I can grab, don't have commercials either.

You're pawn shop example is a red herring. Stick to the media we're discussing.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'll stick.

The first television programme I ever saw was on a television my parents paid a license to own.  That paid for the broadcasting system and the programme.

When I came to Canada, we lost the licence fee but got stuck with commercials, supplied by people that wanted me to buy their stuff and who paid the broadcaster to ensure that there was a reason for me to sit in my seat and watch the tube.