Printable View
In this case, I am referring to the communication between the primary router with the internet connection and the satellite routers. You want that isolated, so you are not sharing WiFi bandwidth with your connected devices and that. The better routers should do this. The cheaper ones might not.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
Ahh thanks. Not knowing any better I just assume that any of the good stuff now should be properly shielded and such. I try not to buy bottom of the barrel electronics anyway.
So what's with Android TV? There are smart tv's that have a built in browser so you can watch whatever like they're a big monitor for pretty cheap or you can get an Android 9.0 TV Box to hook up to your existing smart tv for $70. Is it really that simple? Just plug and play... Why would Google have this if it acts like a way around needing to buy a Chromecast or subscribe to YouTube TV for $50/mo? Do you still pay fees for particular channels like Discovery Network or some of the chick channels my wife watches or does it just make it easier to run those other services?
Sure man let's make a point of it. I'm down. Last summer just flew by somehow, let's make time this spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by prsboogie
Definitely!!Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app
Called and canceled our cable TV and TIVO today. Feels good. Kicks in Friday but already just using Hulu Live. Ordered a Motorola 3.1 modem from Amazon so I can get rid of the $11.50 rental fee per month and that unit is way, way faster than the 100 Mbps service we currently have so it should be somewhat future proof. Why I have been paying for the modem rental is just stupid lazy. I think we'll be at about $70 a month for the cable internet with fees (teaser rate for a year) and taxes plus the Hulu live at about $60. So for a year we will save about $90 a month with the last cable price increase which woke me up to take action. Not really giving up anything except a bit of picture quality (seems a bit less smooth) and TIVO space vs Hulu space which is less with the base rate.
Picture quality is definitely not better, and when it's not good seems somewhat random for us, but we don't care with all the money saved. Also we can't get Blazers games, even if we do one of the NBA app packages, because they're blacked out, but are available with SportsNW on cable. BFD, I guess.Quote:
Not really giving up anything
Exactly thus the except...I can give up a little quality for $1000 a year back in my pocket. We aren't big TV watchers anyway. My wife's dad might throw a fit when he stays here and spends 23 hours a day watching the golf channel but he isn't paying our bills.
We had friends leave early from a weekend visit because they were scared I might not be able to get the Packer game.Quote:
Originally Posted by uglymoney
So...added benefit of cutting the cord.
Ha! Totally follow that. I converted from a Viking to a Packer to keep the peace with my father in law...but they stay here often and as wonderful as they are...well. I can see the potential upside to cutting the cord.
It's really that simple. If you have a smart TV there shouldnt be a need for a brower - they should have the major streaming apps available natively. If not, something running Android TV, a Roku, or Fire TV stick is all you need. Re: why Google does it, those platforms collect 15-30% of the subscription revenue on a recurring basis for any app you sign up for on the platform which likely makes it the most profitable of the 3 lines of business you're describing (platform for 3rd party apps, hardware, and providing live TV via YouTube TV). Chromecast is only a 1-time $30 revenue opportunity. There's a good chance that YouTube TV is unprofitable on subscriptions alone given the cost of live TV programming, although they may eek out a profit on ad sales. Oh, and on YT TV you don't pay extra for your "wife's" ;) ;) channels, just the premium networks if you choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
Most call them home runs- a hard wired cable going to the main cable or modem.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
Running off this cliff in a hurry. We have been paying the full bundled boat to Comcast for ever now $237 a month. ATT put fibre down in our 'hood recently and is offering 300 (vs 700?) service at $40 a month (bundled with our cell service which is currently with them). What is the 300 v 700 and is it something I need to worry about? I know i've fiddled just a tiny bit with Samsung apps and couldn't get shit to work. Is a cromecast what I need? Guess I should start by trying to find that samsung remote...
Oh and by the way,
fixed it for youQuote:
Originally Posted by uglymoney
Android TV is just a hardware box or stick (like Roku or Fire TV or Apple TV devices) that are set up for dedicated streaming and all. Basically instead of using your cell phone, PC, or tablet to stream (and wirelessly cast or connect to the TV to display the streaming content). There is a bit of free content that is available, but for the most part without some piracy, you still need to have a premium subscription to get the channels that are never available over the air for free (Sports networks, 24 hour news networks, movie networks, etc.) and the devices have the Apps to those streaming content that require a login of some sort (cable TV subscription, Satellite Subscription, or the various Premium Streaming offers- You Tube TV, Hulu + Live, Direct TV Now (or AT&T TV), Sling TV, etc. to get the channels that many want when they discontinue their cable or satellite monthly charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
The Netgear orbi i have has a separate wireless connection solely for the router to router communication. It's for the 'backhaul'.Quote:
Originally Posted by RShea
OK, I get what you are talking about- Have not played with Orbi personally yet. Is each of the Orbi's satellite devices still also a full router or just access points that mesh to a main single router? Most have a single router with Wan connection and then mesh the Access points which are the satellite devices spaced through the house- but the satellite devices are not full routers at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by riser3
There are smart tv's labeled as Android tv's and hdmi plug ins? I've only seen the tv's so far but should probably look into it some more. Ok so the Android tv is used to access youtubetv and the others. Is there an advantage to getting one over a similar smart tv or a Roku tv? My current Roku tv has a tab for yt-tv so I'll be able to sign into it just fine but we'll need something for the bedroom so I'm trying to figure out the best solution for that.
We have a sony TV with Android TV. After a couple of years Sony stopped upgrading their version of Android for the TV. Sling and Netflix apps started acting up. Went back to Roku. I wouldn't avoid a TV with Android, our Sony is an excellent TV, but I would plan on a roku, or firetv device. They tend to be supported longer.
Mesh. One main router. I have one of the lesser models. One satellite. I'd like to get another to better cover the kitchen and back deck. Mine's not great if you have a lot of wired devices. Hanging switches off it creates a lot of hops if you have any servers.Quote:
Originally Posted by RShea
Ubiquiti > Orbi.
Just ordered and then returned a TCL Series 6 (Roku TV as the native user interface) to Costco because it didn't play nice with by receiver using surround sound with the connection through HDMI-ARC.
Bought at Hisense H9F from Best Buy to replace it. The Hisense has Android natively. I'd say I like Roku better. It's what we've been using on our old little TV for years. Casting from phone to TV natively is nice, but unnecessary. That said, I don't think the difference between the two, so far, would be enough for me to care. Roku has more available programming and slightly-friendlier UI. Android has more apps.
HOWEVER, Hisense cheaped out on the processor, so the native Android TV is pretty laggy. For how cheap it is for such a great screen, they had to cheap out somewhere. So I almost bought a Roku 4k stick or box on Monday, but Roku doesn't support Dolby Vision yet. I didn't want to go with a Fire stick. We already have enough Amazon shit and I hate Bezos. So it's either an nVidia Shield, or wait for the next-gen Roku that supports Dolby Vision and just stick with the laggy UI for now.
Picture is phenomenal on the new set though. Here's the review: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/hisense/h9f
Well the Motorola DOCSIS 3.1 MB8600 came today. Is ARRIS the better brand? Where were you when I was ordering :) This thing can run at 6000 Mbps and I am only at 100. $150 on Amazon and on the Mediacom approved list. https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/...?ie=UTF8&psc=1Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall Tucker
Cable TV cord was cut today. Found myself watching Hulu on a window here in my desktop. Down the wormhole I go.
Android TV also comes directly on TVs (e.g. all Sonys). Just like Roku has boxes and sticks as well as coming on TCL TVs. Interesting fact: in non-US countries, TCLs are Android.Quote:
Originally Posted by RShea
FWIW, Roku recently stopped updating their older hardware too. The add-on streaming boxes are so cheap I wouldn’t pick a TV based only on that. Choose a TV based on picture quality and price. Eventually apps on any TV will be too slow. At that point just grab a new, cheap streaming box.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder
How did your TCL not play nice with your receiver?Quote:
Originally Posted by LightRanger
Also you say Android had more Apps but Roku had more programming? That doesn’t make sense to me. Doesn’t the number of apps directly correlate to the amount of programming? I‘m confused.
Google "TCL ARC not working" and "TCL audio delay" There are a bunch of threads about it on various fora. Engadget mentioned it in a recent review too. Whether it's an issue for you depends on whether you use the TV's native speakers, how you connect the TV to a receiver, whether you use surround or stereo, etc. Short version: There wasn't a guaranteed fix for my situation and the way I wanted to run the setup. So I simply returned it. Other than that issue, I quite liked the TV. Though I didn't watch much sports content before returning it, so the 60hz refresh rate might have eventually annoyed me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
Android TV has actual Android apps and games, like on your phone. Given how enormous the Play Store is, there are a lot to choose from. Roku might have some games, for example, but way fewer. However, there's a bunch of random smaller channels on the Roku store that aren't on Android apparently. The other annoying thing is that on Android TV I cannot stream from the native HBOGO app using my in-laws' Xfinity login. I can with Roku. Apparently it's the same with other "TV everywhere" apps. I *can* cast from the HBO GO app on my Android phone to the TV to get around it. This annoys the shit out of my wife, however, because she has an iPhone.
I also just generally like the Roku interface better. Cleaner. Less cluttered. Doesn't add random shit to the home screen on its own without asking me. Etc.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
FWIW, Lindahl, returning the TCL and then buying the Hisense definitely confirmed my agreement with you on the native UI not being a major buying factor. My experience, plus messing with various super expensive Samsungs from a couple years back with so-so UIs, led me to the same conclusion. Hell, my in-laws' beautiful 65" from Samsung that's like 2-3 years old didn't have Disney+ as a native option in their app store when I checked last weekend. So I casted shows for the kids from my phone to the Chromecast I left plugged into the back of it.
And then in many markets in a couple years we'll be buying ATSC 3.0 tuners to plug in as well.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk