At the mercy of Comcast

Comcast is my Internet Service Provider. That's not really a bad thing. The service, branded as Xfinity Internet, is actually reliable. I never have to call with issues, and unless my electricity is out, it's always there. Well, nearly always.

There have been situations where Internet went out, but that has always been a tree falling and taking out a line. Never Xfinity Internet service just going out. It's been an external force acting upon it, and they do a good job getting back up and running. I have no complaints about my Comcast service in regards to Internet service.

So what's the problem? They're the only feasible option I have.

Oh, to be sure, there are other options, just not any good options. AT&T is available, right? Wrong.

That was a surprise, as AT&T Internet had previously been available here. However, what was available was the 3 Mbps service. Now that's not even an opttion.

Satellite is an option, but HughesNet, ViaSat, Windstream are options, but they have really small data caps. They would actually be good enough for anyone who isn't a gamer or a streamer. I'm not a gamer, but I am a streamer. The data caps would make it cost prohibitive.

Then there's the new kid on the block, the other satellite service called Starlink. Elon Musk's service is available here. There's a long wait for it, but it's available.

My sister and brother-in-law use that service, and they're happy with it. They said setup was easy, and service is fast and reliable. They're paying twice what I'm paying for Comcast, but that's because I'm only paying $49/month, which is less than many pay. I'm not special, I'm just not paying for faster service than I need.

So, I do have one reasonable option when it comes to an alternative to Comcast. And it has a long wait.

I haven't pursued Starlink for a couple of reasons. First, Comcast does provide reliable service. I have no problems with their service at all. 

Second, the price isn't bad. Whenever I'm talking with someone about Internet service -- they bring it up, I don't -- most around here are surprised that I am only paying $49/month. They all have higher and faster plans.

Third, that long wait. Now I could cut down on the wait by getting in line. But that's $99 to get in line, then another $500 when I get to the front of the line and the equipment is ready to ship. And that's to replace a reliable, relatively cheap service.

It all adds up to the cost of alternatives meaning that Comcast is my only feasible option. And I don't like that. But as much as I don't like not having any other feasible options, the option I have is actually a good one. Comcast makes my Streaming Life possible, and at a good price. I just don't like not having a choice.

Subscription news

Recently, CNN confirmed the March 29 launch date of the CNN+ (pronounced CNN Plus) service. I'm not so much focused on the launch date of the service, as I am the fact that the service is launching at all.

According to Nielsen, CNN, Cable News Network) is the third most watched cable news network.

1. Fox News (5th overall)
2. MSNBC (7th overall)
3. CNN (11th overall)
4. HLN (59th overall)
5. Newsmax TV (77th overall)

CNN also recorded the largest drop in viewership over the previous year, down 38%. All news networks were down, except Newsmax. So, with viewership down, is it a good idea to offer a subscription service Maybe. Maybe not. Let's dig a little deeper.

Live streaming services such as Pluto TV carry live news channels. I did a count. Now, keep in mind that news, weather, and business focused channels are lumped together. Pluto TV calls their category "News and Opinion" which is an honest description, as many news outlets don't focus so much on facts as they do opinion. But that's not the focus of the discussion, it's CNN's launch.

I did a count of the number of news channels in six of the larger free live streaming services.

• Pluto TV: 20 channels. Most are solely news/opinion focused.
• Xumo: 19 channels, plus 9 local news.
• Roku Channel: 21 channels. I noticed that Roku Channel has removed the News category from the home page, where it was one quite prominent.
• Tubi: 16 channels, plus 46 local news feeds.
• Plex: 13 live news channels, plus 11 local news feeds.
• Sling TV Free: 13 live streams.

Add to that the standalone apps for news services that are free. Note that some are on-demand news clips only, while others have a live stream:

• CBS News
• Fox News (limited live stream)
• ABC News Live
• Newsmax
• NBC News
• Newsy
• Real America's Voice
• Sky News
• Aljazeera
• Bloomberg Media
• France 24

There are more, but you get the idea. You don't have to pay to get news. So, is a CNN+ service a good idea? I don't think so, but I've been wrong before. I'm not trying to promote or denigrate CNN, but if a live news service did succeed, that may be good for streaming overall.

Right now, the top news network, Fox News, doesn't offer full live streaming of their service without a subscription to a cable-like streaming service. It will cost you at least $35/month to get Fox News. Prior to launch of CNN+, the only way to get live CNN is via the CNNgo app, which requires a similar subscription to Sling TV or a more expensive service.

If CNN+ succeeds, perhaps more news services will be available to watch with a standalone subscription. For example, while there are many people that watch more than one news/opinion service with cable or a live streaming cable-like package, I suspect most probably have a favorite, whether it be Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, or another. Today, that person would have to pay at least $35/month for streaming services to include news. With CNN+ or something similar, that person could get by for less.

Philo doesn't carry news, sports, or local channels, and is $25/month. Frndly.TV is $7/month. A standalone news service with one of those is cheaper than the cheapest of the larger live streaming cable-like services.

We'll find out soon enough if CNN+ is something that will be around for a while, and if this opens up new opportunities in my, and your, Streaming Life.

Finally trying Nvidia Shield

I've tried a lot of streaming devices over the years. Most have been Roku devices, and many have been Apple TV devices. I've tried a few Amazon Fire TV devices. I've also tried several different Android/Google TV devices. However, one Android TV device I never tried was the Nvidia Shield.

People have talked about how great the Nvidia Shield is, and I have no reason to doubt them. However, I've never tried one. That's about to change.

I've held out as long as I can, and now I'm going to get an Nvidia Shield device to try. Why has it taken so long? Well, the darn thing is expensive. There are two models, and the cheaper one is $150, and the more expensive is $200. I'm going with the bigger device. Go big or go home, right?

Why would I do such a thing? I'm perfectly happy with Roku, right? Well, yeah. I mean, sure, there are things unrelated to the performance of the device that I don't like about Roku, but those things are pretty well common to all four of the major streaming platforms. My choice of streaming platform comes down to how I like using the actual device and interface. And since I started using Roku, it's been Roku.

So why am I getting an Nvidia Shield device? I have two reasons. I think there are two. One is that I like to know about the various devices, not just the platforms. After all, I did try out the TiVo Stream device, the Onn Stick and Onn Streaming Box, the Mi Box, Google Chromecast, and Chromecast with Google TV. Those are all Android TV or Google TV devices. Same interface. Same platform. I wanted to know about them, because they were popular at the time, and I couldn't recommend for or against an item I didn't personally use.

I have used enough Android/Google TV devices to know about the platform, and whether or not it's a worthwhile platform. I know about the positive and negative things regarding the platform. I've used enough devices in the platform that I can talk about it with authority from the user perspective. And as I've purchased and used the devices, I'm able to speak about all of those I listed. That's all the major devices on the Google/Android TV platform. Except one.

I've been unable to speak about the device that's considered the best of the Android/Google TV devices: Nvidia Shield. So, after all these years, I'm getting one. And, as I indicated, the reason I tried those instead of Nvidia Shield is price. The others all cost $50 or less -- well, the Mi Box cost a little more, but not a lot more -- and the Nvidia Shield is three to four times the cost of a Chromecast with Google TV.

So why spend that amount of money? Well, I've spent that amount of money for Apple TV. Why hold off with a comparable device on the same platform. Yes, I'm in the Apple ecosystem, but I can also be considered to be in the Google ecosystem as well.

There's one other reason for getting the Nvidia Shield, but I'll talk about that another time. And that's the reason that tipped the scales. Yes, I'm ending on a teaser. But the truth is that without that other reason, it would still be a thing I should do, if I'm going to consider myself an expert on using streaming devices.

If I want to be give anyone advice on their Streaming Life, I need to have the proper experience. This is one major glaring omission from my list of devices with which I have experience. I'm fixing that.

Plex on Raspberry Pi troubles

Recently, I decided to run Plex on Raspberry Pi for a couple of reasons. And it went well. At first.

To briefly recap, I maintain a Plex server for a family member. It went out, and I gave them access to some of the content on mine while I work on theirs. Well, it turns out their computer is toast. Not sure what happened, but we have a situation that will be expensive to replace.

As I said, they have access to some of the content on my Plex server, so they're up and running, relieving pressure while I deal with this in my spare time. And, since I recently did a couple of Raspberry Pi projects, I thought I would try it as a Plex server. And the initial results were promising. Now, I've run into some issue. And some weird issues, at that.

First, I'm new to Raspberry Pi, so I'm not as familiar with all the peculiarities of what can go wrong. And since it's been years, close to two decades, since I've even touched Linux, I'm finding that catching up is harder than I thought it would be. And, throw in that this is the first time I've tried something like this, and I'm not sure when things go wrong, that my troubleshooting is up to standard. I'm treading slowly, because I'm learning and troubleshooting at the same time, not troubleshooting with what I already know. I'm not always clear what results to expect, since I'm a little outside my element. But hey, that's half the fun, right?

Anyway, after a couple of days, videos began to crash. I had loaded videos from my Plex server on to the external drive so I could do some testing. I put full length movies, some short films (Looney Tunes, etc), and TV shows. After initial testing of a movie or two, I decided to set up a series to autoplay. That is, when one finishes, the next starts. I don't normally do it this way, but for testing purposes, I thought it a good idea. I let it run while I didn't watch, just listened for audio so I knew it was playing. Stress testing it, if you will.

Well, videos started crashing. Then the device itself wouldn't play after an update. So, back to the drawing board.

I've got to do some serious study of this and figure out what's going on. If a Raspberry Pi can be a reliable Plex server, that's a big deal to me. But I'm not sure if that is something that can be a part of my Streaming Life.

USLF schedule announced

I'm still trying to decide if I care about the USFL. The startup league seems to be banking on a nostalgia factor with some football fans, although that really doesn't make much sense.

The original USFL played for three seasons in the 1980s and included some players that were later NFL or CFL stars, such as Herschel Walker, Jim Kelly, Doug Flutie, Reggie White, and Steve Young, among others. Since Jacksonville was close by, the Bulls, which existed during the league's final two seasons, were my team, and I enjoyed the hours I spent in the Gator Bowl watching them play.

But am I really anybody's target audience any more? Probably not. But this new USFL seems to be banking on that old league to at least some degree, with all eight teams using names and logos from the old league.

I won't spend much time wondering why. I'm still undecided on whether or not the league is something I care about, but it is something somebody cares about. And when the league announced their opening week schedule recently, I was quite remiss in not covering it. I don't know how important this league will be, but I should have covered that. I'm fixing that now.

The USFL schedule for the first week of the season was announced, and there will be a Saturday night game, and three Sunday afternoon games. All games will be broadcast on either Fox, NBC, Peacock, USA, or FS1.

The inaugural season will kick off Saturday, April 16, when the New Jersey Generals face the Birmingham Stallions at 7:30 p.m. ET in a game that will be simulcast nationally on FOX, NBC and Peacock.

The USFL will then showcase a tripleheader on Sunday, April 17, with the Houston Gamblers meeting the Michigan Panthers at noon ET, the Philadelphia Stars playing the New Orleans Breakers at 4 p.m. ET and the Tampa Bay Bandits battling the Pittsburgh Maulers at 8 p.m. ET.

It would be nice to see the league succeed, if for no other reason than more games will be available for sports fans. And, all of the games will be available streaming.

Now we know when this new league will enter my, and maybe your, Streaming Life.

Are these deals good deals?

Everybody likes to save money. Well, maybe not everybody, because I don't know everybody. But I don't know anyone who doesn't like a good deal.

Sometimes, the deal is on something we've been thinking about anyway. Sometimes the deal is about something that never crossed our minds, but now they have our attention. Which was the idea, after all. So a deal will catch our eye.

However, since many of the people I know are older -- the ones that are still alive, that is -- have been around the block a time or two, when we squint our eyes and wonder what's really going on.

We know there's a reason for the deal, and it's probably not that they are just giving stuff away. There's a reason. They know it. We know. They know we know it. And we know they know we know it. It's a game. Well, kinda. And there will probably be a winner. Best outcome is both are winners. That doesn't always happen, as you know. And if you don't know, you'll eventually find out.

So, when this game is played, it usually involves some company offering a really good price on something. And some of us wonder what's really going on, and we squint our eyes.

There are actually two reasons for us squinting our eyes. First, it's a reaction to someone telling you something you're not sure you believe. You probably do it. And if you don't, you will. Trust me. (You that doubt me just squinted your eyes, didn't you? Told ya so.)

The second reason? To read the fine print. There's always fine print. And that's where this really good deal turns out to be for someone else. We don't quality for some reason. "Offer valid only days that do not end in 'Y'" or something like that.

Every now and then, though, there is no fine print that removes the offer from us. We "qualify" for the offer. So what then? Is this good deal, that actually is for us, a good deal? Well, yeah, sometimes. But sometimes not. And in streaming, you really have to be careful.

Of course, you should always be careful, but streaming is still relatively new. Ten years ago, I was a veteran streamer. But I was also part of a very small minority of people: streamers. Put it this way. When I started streaming, Netflix was primarily a DVD service. Think about that.

In the last few years, streaming has really taken off. But it's still a new landscape. Not a virgin landscape, but not a slutty one either. But there are people who will offer wonderful opportunities that aren't all that wonderful.

Here's one I saw recently, and I'll use it as an example. I'm not picking on them, but ... well, okay, maybe I am.

So, what's the problem? Well, this is from Amazon. It lets you subscribe to Epix from within the Amazon app, or on your Amazon Fire TV device.

Still not seeing the problem? Here's what you're not seeing. This subscription can only be used on an Amazon device or within the Amazon app.

So, why is that a problem? Well, it may not be. If you are only going to use your Amazon Fire TV device to watch Epix, then fine. Or if you are only going to use the Amazon app to watch Epix, then fine. But if you try to use the Epix app on your Roku, then you are out of luck. You're also unable to watch on Apple TV, on Google/Android TV, on your iPhone, iPad, Android phone, Android tablet, Web browser, and so on. You are locked in to Amazon to use the subscription.

Now, if that's not a problem, then that's not a problem, and that means it's a very good deal.

Oh, and while I used Amazon and Epix in this example, this is also true for deals through Roku, to include the Roku Channel. This isn't directly solely against Amazon. This isn't actually directed against anyone. It's simply a reminder to look at all the details and thing it all through.

Sometimes these deals can indeed be great deals, and make your Streaming Life easier. But not always.

AMC+ again

Some months back, I looked at subscribing to AMC+. I was undecided about it. They were running a really good special that worked out to around $2/month for a one year subscription. Regular price is around $9/month. I considered it because three months at regular price is more than one year at the discount. But, I couldn't decide, which means I actually did decide, because the special went away, meaning I decided no.

Fast forward to this month. A family member likes Outlander, an AMC show that is apparently a big hit. The only thing I know about it is a lead character is a Scotsman during the Jacobite Rising, and he's named after a Doctor Who character and actor. Yes, Jamie Fraser is named for Fraser Hines' character of Jamie McCrimmon, who met the Second Doctor (Patrick Troughton) at the Battle of Culloden. Jamie was one of my favorite Doctor Who characters, so when some other TV show named a character after him and the actor who played him, I became aware.

Anyway, she likes the show, and I said I would subscribe. Well, I went to subscribe, and I couldn't. That wasn't really a bad thing, because it turns out I had already subscribed. Remember when I said I couldn't make up my mind and then waited too late? Yeah, that's how I remembered it, but that's not how it happened. Turns out I had subscribed for a year for $24. So, I didn't need to spend $9/month for the next three months to have Outlander for her to watch. I had it all along.

Which means that I had it all along. I could have been watching it and trying it out. Well, last weekend, I did. I started watching Ragdoll, a British series. It's interesting. I'll watch some more, just to give it a full examination.

I'm not sure how I'll like it overall. I mean, I've had it for about four months and didn't remember. So now I have some catching up to do. I'll watch it for a bit, and decide if I want to keep it after November. I doubt that I will, simply because of the way I rotate subscriptions, but it is something I will consider.

All these months, my Streaming Life could have had AMC+ in it. Boy do I feel silly.