Some organizations are embracing it more than others.  TSN does have their TSN GO app but you can only watch the content on your device.  Meanwhile, the SportsNet app (like all the CBC apps) lets you use Chromecast to watch the content on your TV.  Came in awfully handy when the satellite signal went out this evening during the Jays game.  Worked like a charm and looks great.  But if cut the chord completely, I wouldn't be able to use the app at all.

I think it's just a matter of figuring out how to monetize it.  The TSN and Sportsnet apps just show the on-air feed complete with commercials.  The CBC live feeds blank out the commercials.  Why?

This use of the Internet as "common carrier" is all the more reason to embrace net neutrality.  

Last edited by Peter the K (July 24, 2018 9:43 pm)

Radiowiz wrote:

Some channels DO NOT STREAM. 
Where's GSN? (Game show network, to name one channel)
I have one of those fancy tiny boxes that you hook up to the TV.
It streams channels...tons of channels for free, so I think maybe I don't need cable...but then I realize the channels I'd actually miss because they're not streaming. They are literally cable only channels.
 

What's sad is a lot of those "free channels" are actually not legally streamed free to your box if it's the type I think it is.   MOST android boxes on the market, access illegal streams of channels, movies etc.   Even if you are paying a service fee, there is only a few actually licensed, which means that service fee is supporting illegal activity, and do nothing to support what few shows, programs etc that are actually good.    You have to do your home work.   Some say they don't care, but reality is networks and programs can't be made for free..    To be clear, the android box isn't illegal, but most of the content people access on them is. 

cGrant wrote:

Isn't it fascinating that many on this board will scream high murder if a radio employee isn't treated right or paid adequately. Yet, many don't seem to have an issue with stealing content and robbing the actors, writers, etc. of their dues. Oh, they'll try to justify somehow and blame the big, bad cable companies. But theft is theft.

Nothing is illegal about streaming something that is already there, streaming online.


 

cGrant wrote:

Radiowiz wrote:

Nothing is illegal about streaming something that is already there, streaming online.

I see. So, the source of the content doesn't matter?! Well, there's money already in a bank, so taking it isn't a problem, right? Merchandise is just all around a store anyway, might as well just take it and walk out the establishment without payment.

Sorry, but justifying theft is absurd.
 

No more absurd than equating content with the physical media the content is recorded on.

If I steal a DVD/Blu Ray, the seller is physically deprived of the opportunity to sell that media.  If I download or stream the same movie without paying for it.  Who loses?  Especially when the reality is that if I couldn't download said movie, I just wouldn't bother and move on.

Not trying to start a pissing contest about "stealing" but equating taking intellectual property with physically is ludicrous.  I won't argue that they're both "wrong" but the reality of the situation is different.

 

Peter the K wrote:

If I download or stream the same movie without paying for it.  Who loses?  
Not trying to start a pissing contest about "stealing"

If you download or stream a movie WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. <--- right there. WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. Who loses? Without deconstructing the who/what/where, the key of your phrase is WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. That alone should be the crux of the point. It is theft. Period. Endstop. But, yes, someone is ultimately losing some financial residual compensation.
 

Hey, how about instead of bombarding the Mod, people don't hide and run to Daddy and post your opposition here or inbox me directly? Why are people scared to do that? We're all adults here. Interesting that the first response those people have is to tattle and demand censure rather than have a discussion. Go ahead. I have thick skin. What I don't have is respect for people that want to be Cindy Brady. Go ahead.

Oh me! Let me start!

cGrant your mysogynistic, puerile, nonsensical ravings with disgusting pornographic and scatological overtones seem to be deliberately meant to offend and distract the board from what we've all gathered here to discuss.

You've put down more posters than elevated. You're capable of restraint and even kindness, but choose to be combative and rude.

Your constant use of the term illuminati illustrates you're just an incarnation of someone who continues to try the patience of moderators who eventually tire of you.

And you are ridiculously unrepentant of the crap you put out, not caring a whit about the people who work in radio...who are passionate, who enjoy the past, who discuss the technology and current events with RESPECT for one another.

You ought the be ashamed of yourself, but doubt you are capable of feeling shame. Why not start your own board, and see how well your filthy nonsense fairs?

BTW people don't mind telling it like it is on this board. But most of us have collectively decided you're not worth the bother.

Have a nice day! 

Jody Thornton wrote:

But when you stole the Blu-Ray/DVD disc, it wasn't the physical disc that's being stolen.  You were stealing the intangible copyrighted video and audio signal.  So it was always intellectual property. 

True, but that wasn't my point.  The argument here isn't whether or not it's "wrong", it's the perception of the offence from the consumer's (and, to some extent, my) point of view.

Lets suppose you have a store that sells movies and you have 10 copies of "Movie X" on Blu-Ray.

If I walk into your store and walk out with one of your 10 Blu-Rays without paying for it, you are certainly losing on the income for that copy.

If I walk into your store with my laptop, take a BR off the shelf, copy it and put it back, you still have 10 copies in your inventory.  You have lost nothing.  You can still sell those 10 BRs and make your money.

Now to really muddy the waters, what if I walk into your store, buy a Blu-Ray, then make a copy of it and give either the original or the copy to a friend?  Technically, I should have bought two copies of the BR but as it stands you haven't lost any income especially since over the next few days, the other 9 copies are purchased.  Using the rationale that the person taking the copy would have bought it otherwise doesn't necessarily wash.  I can't make a copy of a Lamborghini.  That doesn't mean I'm going to buy one.  Unless Lotto Max smiles on me on Friday, I'm just going to have to do without.

The point (at the risk of triggering another scatological outburst) is that when dealing with intellectual property,  it's difficult to use the black and white "theft" argument and make it stick.
​

Last edited by Peter the K (July 26, 2018 2:38 pm)

wasn't there a tariff on blank tapes and cds at one time?  Theoretically then, i suppose an isp could slap an additional copy tax on their already huge rates, and it would act in the same manner to compensate content creators, just as the blank media tax from days gone by?

Peter the K wrote:

There was a time where you could listen to the record or even CD before you bought it.  Of course I'll buy the shrink-wrapped item if given a choice, but as long as the packaging is complete and I can still return a defective product, I see no problem.

Sir, I am going to assume you never worked retail. Any "samplers" were taken into account by the distributor and live inventory counts were adjusted accordingly. When we played the current week's DVD on the bank of television sets, that DVD was NOT to be sold and sent to claims.

I cannot speak on behalf of other retailers, but the chain I was at would NOT allow the sale of opened CDs or DVDs. It was a security issue. Cashiers would ring back to Electronics and have the Associate fetch an unopened copy.

Sorry, it washes. I have a decade of experience to this end. 

Lentil wrote:

Oh me! Let me start!

cGrant your mysogynistic, puerile, nonsensical ravings with disgusting pornographic and scatological overtones seem to be deliberately meant to offend and distract the board from what we've all gathered here to discuss.

You've put down more posters than elevated. You're capable of restraint and even kindness, but choose to be combative and rude.

Your constant use of the term illuminati illustrates you're just an incarnation of someone who continues to try the patience of moderators who eventually tire of you.

And you are ridiculously unrepentant of the crap you put out, not caring a whit about the people who work in radio...who are passionate, who enjoy the past, who discuss the technology and current events with RESPECT for one another.

You ought the be ashamed of yourself, but doubt you are capable of feeling shame. Why not start your own board, and see how well your filthy nonsense fairs?

BTW people don't mind telling it like it is on this board. But most of us have collectively decided you're not worth the bother.

Have a nice day!

Nobody's talking about this?? 
https://www.rogers.com/consumer/about-rogers-iptv?icid=ba-hps1con-hrctv-6

I've seen nothing in broadcast or print media about this however Rogers highlight it,  in their latest "Connect" email that they send to  customers.

That was my reaction too.  Interesting features, but not something that I need;  not to mention the extra costs and hardware changes you noted.