Frndly.TV staying friendly

Frndly.TV has been a favorite of mine since it launched. It offers good family friendly entertainment at a good price. It's one of the cheapest ways to get Hallmark Channel streaming content.

Recently, Frndly.TV has added several channels to its lineup, and went up a dollar a month -- still a good deal starting at $7/month -- but some of the new channels aren't as family friendly as the original lineup. I'm not saying the content isn't good, but some of the crime shows may be too intense for children. Not quite as family friendly.

However, the most recent addition is more in the family friendly style. Frndly.TV has added FMC: Family Movie Classics to its lineup. While I've not seen that channel, it is one I will be checking out.

I'm glad to see more family friendly content available for streaming. And while I may not be tuning in FMC or Frndly.TV every day/night, it is something that will be a daily stop in some people's Streaming Life.

Roku Live TV

Roku has launched a new "Live TV" item on its menu. It's similar to the Live TV section of Amazon Fire TV, but there are some differences, as you might expect. But not many.

The main difference, really, is that Fire TV will try to autoplay selections for you while you are reading the description of the content. There are settings that will turn some of this off, but that only works on the items at the very top of the Live TV section, the Featured section. When you go to the other sections, Fire TV autoplays. I hate that. Roku doesn't autoplay, which is something I prefer. So right off the bat, Roku wins the comparison.

Roku Live TV focuses primarily on The Roku Channel. All of the content you can access directly from the Live TV menu is from The Roku Channel. There are sections of content that are actually shortcuts to Roku apps. Of course, since Roku calls apps by the name "channels" it's difficult to tell if this is a live TV channel, or an app. The way to tell is the actual live content from The Roku Channel has a "LIVE" indicator on the thumbnail. If it doesn't have that, it's either an app, or a section of The Roku Channel.

And if it seems I've mentioned The Roku Channel a lot so far, that's because the Live TV section is really heavy into The Roku Channel. Too heavy, I think. Let me offer an example.

I have the AMC+ app and subscription directly to AMC+. I can log in on any device that supports the AMC+ app. However, on the Roku Live TV menu, under the "Watch with your Premium Subscription" section, the AMC+ item takes me to the AMC+ "channel" within The Roku Channel. That can only be access via a subscription through Roku. My subscription is not through Roku, but through AMC+ directly. I can't log in and watch from The Roku Channel, or from the Roku Live TV section. However, I can launch the AMC+ app from the Roku main menu and watch.

I can see this causing some confusion and frustration for Roku users. What should happen is an additional item, both in the Roku Live TV section and in The Roku Channel for "I already have a subscription" that launches the appropriate app.

Which brings me to another thing about the Live TV section. Roku doesn't just list apps you have installed on your account when it lists live TV apps. If you have the app installed, it launches the app. But if you don't have the app installed, it will install it for you. If you have your Roku configured to require a PIN to install apps, it will prompt you. If you don't have your settings to require a PIN, it will simply install the app.

One other thing about Live TV: I don't see a place or setting for OTA content. If you have an antenna, it's not accessible within Live TV. At least, not on a standard Roku device. I need to see if the implementation on a Roku TV is different. And, it doesn't pull in content from Tablo or Air TV, or from what I can tell, any other apps that use antenna content.

There are some good things about the Live TV section, and some things I don't like, mainly the push for Roku subscriptions at the expense of existing subscriptions. However, that's been a sore point for me about The Roku Channel for some time, and this is really the same issue, since the Live TV section is so Roku Channel focused.

Still, overall, I live it better than the Amazon Fire TV implementation, if for no other reason, the autoplay that Amazon won't let me turn off. Despite the things I don't like about it, overall it's good, and I see it becoming a part of my Streaming Life.

Second thoughts on Chromecast

I've been using Roku as my primary streaming device since 2010. But, along the way, I've used many other devices. I currently have an Apple TV, Fire TV Stick, and Chromecast with Google TV. And Chromecast is my topic today.

I've talked before about what I like about Chromecast, and what I don't like about Chromecast. The things I like are still true, but the things I don't like are becoming more and more apparent. For example, my Chromecast is sluggish. Sure, there are ways to fix that, but having to do that isn't something I particularly care for.

These little nagging things -- sluggish and requiring a restart, running out of space -- can wear on my patience. Now, if all devices were like that, I wouldn't complain so much. But, over time, it turns out that Fire TV, which was on my naughty list for years, now performs better over time. And Roku performs best overall. Well, Roku and Apple TV perform the best.

This isn't to say that Chromecast with Google TV is a bad device. Rather, it's not quite up to par with Roku or Apple TV, and right now, if behind Fire TV. It's number four on my list of four devices. It was second, behind Roku. That's not a good trend.

Still, it works well enough. And if it's your device of choice, that's a good decision. It's just not my device of choice. However, it will remain a part of my Streaming Life.

App cleanup

I noticed that on my primary streaming device, a Roku device, I have 62 apps listed. That kinda surprised me.

Side note: Roku calls their apps by the name "channels" which I never really liked. I'm calling them apps, because that's what they are.

I asked myself, "Self, do you really use 62 different apps? Surely you can't be serious." But I did not complete the Airplane joke, I stopped at the Flip Wilson joke. And if you don't get that, you're a lot younger than I am.

I know I don't use 62 different apps, so it's time for a cleanup. Only, I discovered it's actually 60 apps. Turns out, I still have the "Add Channels" and "TV Off" selections on the main menu, which Roku calls "shortcuts." Those were the first to go. Down to 60.

On a Roku home screen, there are nine fully visible apps, and three mostly visible apps. The two I use most, Plex and YouTube, are the first two items. ESPN is on that block of nine, as is Sling TV. During college football season, that made sense.

After those first four apps, the next five are apps I will occasionally subscribe to: Disney+, Paramount+, Showtime, HBO Max, and Discovery+. Sometime during the year, it's likely I'll subscribe for a month to one or more of those, just for a month, and binge stuff. Of course, I might not. But if I do, I'll move it to the top of that listing.

Next are AMC+, Starz, and Curiosity. Those first two are like the previous four. I may subscribe some time during the year. I do have a Curiosity account, though. It's cheap, and they have good content. I don't watch it that much, though, probably because of where the app is located. So, I'm moving it to the 3 slot.

The next one is Hulu. I was surprised that it was so far down on the list. I've subscribed to Hulu since they sold subscriptions. I'm not subscribed at the moment, waiting for the queue to build up, and will likely subscribe again later this month or next month. I'll keep it until I'm all caught up, then let it lapse until I want to play catchup again.

Movies Anywhere is a favorite of mine, but it really doesn't bring much to the table since I started using Plex. All of my movie purchases are downloaded onto my Plex server, so I can watch them that way. I keep Movies Anywhere around, of course, but I don't use it that much. I do recommend it, however. Not everyone has all of their movies on a Plex (or similar) server. It's a great app and great service. I highly recommend it.

Pluto TV is next, and I really like it. I need to move it up the menu. Same with Prime Video and Pub-D-Hub. I've written about them before, and may again. I do watch it, but not as much as I really would, because it's so low on the menu. It's getting moved up.

Don't worry, I'm not going to list all 60 apps, but I will mention a few more. Tablo is a favorite, but at my house, I don't have it high on my Roku device for a reason. The antenna is at another location, and I have to access it across a different network. Tablo doesn't support watching from another network on Roku, but they do on Fire TV, Apple TV, and Android/Google TV. Tablo is the first app listed on Fire TV, for instance, and that's how I watch TV over the air. The Tablo device is at a different location, and I can't watch it on my Roku at home. I have a Roku at the other location, though, and use Roku to watch it there. So, I keep Tablo on my Roku menu. But at home, it's down on the list for a reason.

I was surprised to see Xumo so far down. Next to Pluto TV, it's my favorite free live streaming service. Tubi, to me, is not as useful as Xumo, but I know a lot of people like it. I keep it around, but not as high on the menu. Xumo is being moved higher though.

Peacock TV needs to be moved higher, but not too high. I hate the autoplay, and don't use it as much as I would.

All the news apps will stay down on the list. I never watch them, but I do keep them around. For now. I probably should delete them, since they aren't serving any purpose.

I think I'll take one day a week to go down on the menu and pull up one I like to watch. After a couple of months, I'll delete the apps that are at the bottom of the list. Unless there's a good reason to keep them. I can't think of a good reason, but I'm open to keeping something that might be useful.

For now, most of those apps aren't useful. I may end up removing them from my Streaming Life, as I try to get my streaming devices in order.

How to watch the College Football Playoff championship game

There have been 37 college bowl games/playoff games so far this year. More were scheduled, but five were canceled. The first two games were on December 17, and the 38th one, the national championship game, will be tonight. In all, 74 schools will have played games this post-season.

Streamers used to have a difficult time watching the games live -- at least legally -- but that changed in the 2015 season when the first live streaming service, Sling TV, launched. Now, there are several live streaming services, and you have lots of options when it comes to watching bowl games.

The Game

Monday, January 10

College Football Playoff National Championship Presented by AT&T

8:00 PM ESPN

Alabama vs Georgia

How to Watch

The game will be on a streaming service that carries ESPN. Here are the services for that network.

ESPN/ESPN2

ESPN carries many college games during the season. A few are carried on ESPN2. All services that carry ESPN also carry ESPN2:

• Sling Orange ($35)
• Vidgo ($55)
• YouTube TV ($65)
• Fubo ($65)
• Hulu+Live TV ($70)
• DirecTV Stream ($70)

The cheapest way to watch all of the bowl games is Sling Orange ($35).

Dropping Live TV Streaming

Every football season, I subscribe to a live streaming service, usually Sling TV, to watch football. Well, there's one more game left in the college football season, the national championship tomorrow night. After that's done, I drop Sling TV.

A lot of people use a live streaming service, some call it "Cable 2.0," year-round. I don't. There's nothing that I watch live year round. I am fortunate enough to live in an area where I can watch local channels via an antenna. I don't need YouTube TV, Hulu+Live TV, Fubo, or any other service that carries local channels. The fact that my go-to service for college football is Sling TV is because I don't need locals, and Sling TV doesn't carry locals. That's why it's so much cheaper than other services.

With no need for a live streaming service, I'm about to save $35/month by dropping Sling TV. And that's one thing I really like about streaming. All I have to go is go to the Website and cancel.

It's simple and straightforward. I won't get billed when the month ends, and I won't have access to those channels then either. Come next football season, I'll subscribe.

Of course, the way I do it isn't the only way. Even if you don't care about sports, you can still use this concept of subscribing and canceling throughout the year.

For example, I do the same thing with Hulu. Right now, I don't have a subscription. I will, I just don't at the moment. There are some shows I watch, but they aren't airing right now, or only a few are airing. In a month or two, there will be enough shows in the queue where it'll be worth it to subscribe again, and I will.

Doing it this way saves me some money. While there are things to watch on Sling TV -- or any other live streaming service -- I can find plenty to watch without the service year-round. Same thing with on-demand services such as Hulu. I could find something to watch right now, if I had a subscription. But without it, I still have stuff to watch, and when I do subscribe for a month a little later, I'll watch all the stuff that's only on Hulu. Then, I'll cancel again and save some money.

Is it a lot of work to do it this way? Isn't it simpler and easier to just subscribe and keep the subscription? Or subscribe for a year and save money? Sure, that's a viable option. But for me, the whole idea was to save money. I can subscribe at month-to-month prices for less than yearly discounted price because I won't subscribe as often. To me, the extra work pays off with saving money. I like saving money.

So, Hulu is not active at the moment, but will be in a month or two. Sling TV is about go to inactive, and will remain so until football season. It works for my Streaming Life, and keeps the costs down.

Would expanded playoffs have made a difference?

For quite some time, several of my online friends have advocated and expanded college football playoff system. We've not been some Johnny-come-lately about it. We've been clamoring for this online for over a decade and a half. And privately for longer. If you want a refresher of one of our latest calls, there's a post I wrote last month that you can review here.

If that had been how things were done this year, would we have still ended up with Alabama and Georgia playing for the title? Heck, I don't know. And that's the point. The four-team playoff pretty much guaranteed Alabama vs. Georgia.

Had the 16-team format been in place, you would have had:

(1) Alabama (SEC)
(16) Northern Illinois (Mid American)

(2) Michigan (Big Ten)
(15) Utah State (Mountain West)

(3) Georgia (At-large)
(14) Texas-San Antonio (Conference USA)

(4) Cincinnati (American)
(13) Louisiana (Sun Belt)

(5) Notre Dame (At-large)
(12) Pittsburgh (ACC)

(6) Ohio State (At-large)
(11) Utah (Pac 12)

(7) Baylor (Big XII)
(10) Michigan State (At-large)

(8) Mississippi (At-large)
(9) Oklahoma State (At-large)

Or, if you had NFL style seeding, you would have had:

(1) Alabama (SEC)
(16) Michigan State (At-large)

(2) Michigan (Big Ten)
(15) Oklahoma State (At-large)

(3) Cincinnati (American)
(14) Mississippi (At-large)

(4) Baylor (Big XII)
(13) Ohio State (At-large)

(5) Utah (Pac 12)
(12) Notre Dame (At-large)

(6) Pittsburgh (ACC)
(11) Georgia (At-large)

(7) Louisiana (Sun Belt)
(10) Northern Illinois (Mid American)

(8) Texas-San Antonio (Conference USA)
(9) Utah State (Mountain West)

I think either way, Alabama and Georgia make it to the second round. Michigan and Cincinnati would have had an easier time in the first pairing, but the second pairing (the one I prefer) would have had them face tougher opponents. Either way, they could have made it through.

So, with all four of the CFP teams making it through the round of 16, would they have made it further? That depends on which seeding was used. The first has Alabama playing the winner of Mississippi-Oklahoma State. The other seeding would have Alabama playing a lesser opponent. That's not a slap of those two teams, just a reality. Alabama would probably have made it through the second round, putting them in the four-team round.

Michigan would have played either the Baylor-Michigan State winner, or the Louisiana Northern Illinois winner. While the first would have been a tougher game, Michigan would have been favored to make it to the third round, putting them in the group of four. So, no change so far.

Georgia would have faced either Ohio State (the other team in the pairing was Utah, and those two actually played in a bowl, with Ohio State winning), or Cincinnati. So my preferred seeing would have kept one of the actual final four teams out of that round. Georgia would have handled Cincinnati much as Alabama did in reality, the different style of Ohio State would have made an interesting game. Still, int he playoffs, the SEC usually beats the Big Ten, so in either case, Georgia makes it to the final four.

In the top pairing, Cincinnati would have faced the winner of Notre Dame-Pittsburgh. Cincinnati would probably have won that matchup, although both would have been tough opponents. It's very possible that Cincinnati would not have made it to the final four regardless of seeding.

Oh, the other team, assuming the NFL-style seeding? The winner of Baylor-Ohio State against Utah-Notre Dame. That would have been a good game.

In either case, you would have had Alabama, Michigan, and Georgia as three of the four remaining teams. In one seeing, Cincinnati would have been the fourth team, as it was in reality, but in the other seeding, you would have one of four very good teams: Baylor, Ohio State, Utah, or Notre Dame.

In the top seeding, you would have what you ended up with. And if the outcome of those games didn't change, you'd still have Alabama vs Georgia.

In the other seeding, you would have Alabama vs Georgia as well, but in a semi-final game. The other game would have been Michigan against Baylor-Ohio State-Utah-Notre Dame. I'm not even going to pick the winner, because it doesn't matter for me to make my point.

However you think that matchup would go, the final game would not have been Alabama vs Georgia. You would still get to see that, but in the semi-finals if my preferred seeding was in place. The championship would have been the winner of that game against a team from the Big Ten, Big 12, or Notre Dame.

The end result would still be a champion from the SEC, as I thing either Alabama or Georgia would win a matchup against any of those (they did beat one already in reality).

If you kept the current seedings, just expanded to 16, you'd have exactly what you ended up with anyway. What you would gain would be the fans of Baylor, Notre Dame, and Ohio State knowing whether or not their teams could have made it.

If you seeded conference champions at the top, you would get a different championship game. You'd get a different final four even. So an expanded playoff may not have changed the result -- it would if they did it right -- but it would have answered some questions, or ehanged things entirely.

I still think it's a good plan.