Bally Sports still on target for June

I've been a Braves fan for years. The way I, and many other Braves fans my age, were able to follow the Braves was on radio. But the Braves ended up on TV with WTBS (later just TBS) and that eventually became the primary way I followed.

Over the last few years, though, it's been harder to follow the Braves on TV. Cutting the cord certainly put a crimp in it, and the Braves going from a single TV source (WTBS) to multiple (regional sports networks) made it more and more difficult.

With MLB TV being around for a couple of decades, you'd think it would be easy enough to watch them on a streaming device. You'd think wrong.

Blackout rules mean I cannot watch the Braves live. And unless I want to pay the big bucks for a streaming package with regional sports -- I don't -- then I'm not able to watch them streaming. At least, most of the time.

When they show up on Peacock, or one of the broadcast networks such as Fox, I'm able to watch the games. Otherwise, unless I subscribe to a large expensive streaming service, I'm out of luck. And like I said, I'm not going to pay that kind of money.

However, there is hope on the horizon. Bally Sports, who owns a bunch of regional networks, is launching its own service and app next month. And Bally is negotiating contracts with teams to begin streaming their games. The catch is, if you're in market, you can watch the games. For example, if they carried the Braves, since I'm in market -- the reason I can't use MLB TV to follow them -- I would be able to watch on Bally Sports.

Here's the catch. They have contracts with five teams so far, and none of those five are the Braves. But, for fans of the Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Rays, and Brewers, you're in luck. You'll be able to watch in-market games for those teams.

If you don't live in those markets, you won't be able to get those teams. But you could get MLB TV, so there is, and has been, a way for fans in that situation.

My situation won't be changing next month. No Braves. Yet. But, I'm holding out hope that the service launch is successful, and that they'll expand to cover my Braves. I'd like to finally get their games into my Streaming Life.

Free content from Disney?

An article on The Streaming Advisor this past week suggested that Disney may expand Disney+ with a free tier. But, there's a catch.

There's always a catch, isn't there?

Well, this take by Ryan Downey was worth a read. He mentions FASTS, or Free Ad-Suported-Streaming Services (I know, the letters don't match, but oh well):

There is constant hand wringing about subscription fatigue, which is the idea that people are reaching the breaking point in their willingness to sign up for more subscription streaming services. This is coupled with the rise in the popularity of FASTS.

Only a few years ago Pluto TV was an independent startup company with curated YouTube channels. Now it is a key part of Paramount Inc after first being bought by Viacom. XUMO too started as an independent company with an aim to bring valuable brands together on Smart TVs and streaming platforms. Ir is now under the auspices of the largest cable provider in the US and a large part of its future as seen with its integration into the XClass TV infrastructure.

He suggests that Chicken Soup for the Soul might be acquired by Disney, due to its contracts for content with several content providers. Which is an interesting idea. Give it a read.

If it does come to pass, would it be a good thing? Well, maybe. Maybe not. But these kind of things do happen. If it makes my Streaming Life better, then great. But I have my concerns.

The PGA Championship

I'm not a golfer. My son is, however. He enjoys it, and does it in his spare time, when he can mange to get some spare time. A lot of people golf, and seem to enjoy it.

A lot of people watch it, as well. And one of the big events in golf is this weekend. It starts today, in fact.

The PGA Championship in Tulsa, Oklahoma is one of the four major tournaments in the USA. The Masters was in April, and Scottie Scheffler took the Green Jacket. The U.S. Open is next month, and the British Open (properly, The Open) is in July.

The PGA Championship starts today, and if you're a streamer, you can watch coverage of the event.

CBS, ESPN, and ESPN+ will carry various rounds of the PGA Championship.

Today, ESPN+ coverage starts at 8:00 am and wraps up at 2:00 pm. ESPN continues from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm.

Tomorrow's 2nd round schedule is the same.

On Saturday and Sunday each, ESPN+ covers from 8:00 am to 10:00 am, then ESPN from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm, and CBS has coverage from 1:00 pm to 7:00 pm.

ESPN+

The standalone service is $7/month, or can be bundled with Hulu and Disney+ as part of the Disney Bundle for $14/month

ESPN

You can find ESPN on several streaming services.

• Sling TV (Orange) ($35/month)
• Vidgo ($55/month; $67/three months)
• YouTube TV ($65/month)
• Fubo TV ($70/month)
• Hulu+Live TV ($70/month; includes Disney Bundle, meaning ESPN+)
• DirecTV Stream ($70/month)

CBS

You have a few ways to watch CBS, including one free way.

• Antenna (free over the air)
• Paramount+ ($10/month)
• YouTube TV ($65/month)
• Fubo TV ($70/month)
• Hulu+Live TV ($70/month; includes Disney Bundle, meaning ESPN+)
• DirecTV Stream ($70/month)

You have options to include championship golf in your Streaming Life this weekend.

Chromecast isn't what it should be

I so want to like the Chromecast with Google TV device. I really do. But Google really makes it difficult. They really do.

Google has a troubled history with streaming devices. They entered the market with the Nexus Q and Nexus Player in 2012 and 2014 respectively.

The Nexus Q never really launched. It was doomed from the start, with its $300 high-end price and its low-end specs. It ran Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) and required an Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean) device to use as a remote to control the device. Like the original Chromecast. They ended up giving them all away and canceling the product. The $300 Nexus Q was replaced by the $35 Chromecast, which also requires a mobile device to control it, although it's not limited to Android devices.

The Nexus Player did a little better than the Nexus Q. It was actually in production for a year and a half. It was an actual streaming player, with a remote control and access to the Google Play store. And, it had the features of a Chromecast as well. However, in 2016, Google stopped selling it, and support ended in 2018.

For a while, Google had only the Chromecast as its streaming device. It's a current product, though it has undergone some hardware updates along the way. It's a pretty good streaming device, if you can deal with needing to use a mobile device to launch and control content.

Chromecast is great for casting from a mobile device or a Google Chrome browser. As an everyday streaming device, it leaves much to be desired, at least for me.

Enter Chromecast with Google TV. It's a Chromecast, and more. It has a remote and access to the Google Play store. It's a full featured streaming device, as well as having all of the functionality of the basic Chromecast. And it's a great little device. Almost.

I say "almost" because the Chromecast with Google TV (Chromecast/GTV) is a little light on the specs. While it has more onboard storage than Roku devices, Roku can offload apps and just keep running. Chromecast/GTV requires you to remove apps if you run out of space. It does not have good storage space management.

Here's why that's such a problem.

With Roku, if your device is full, and you launch an app that you already own but isn't on your device, your Roku device will move off older apps and install the newer app. There's a delay of a second or two (usually no more than that) while this happens automatically. It's a pretty decent user experience.

With Chromecast/GTV, if you own an app that's not installed on your device, you are prompted to install it. Once you do that, if you're out of space, you get an error message telling you that. It's up to you to find the apps that you have installed and how much space they have, then determine which one or ones to remove, then go back to the app you wanted to run, install it, then launch it. That's not a good user experience.

The solution is to either increase onboard storage, or have an app manager to handle all these things for you. And if you have ever used an Android device, you know that it doesn't really manage apps this way.

Could it be done? Sure. But it would take some work. Both Roku OS and Android/Google TV are built on a Linux core, so they're cousins in a way. However, they are different enough that this wouldn't be an easy thing to accomplish.

Still, when you cast an app to Chromecast devices (basis or GTV) the Chromecast does actually run the app. How they go about it, I'm not all that clear. But the fact you can launch many apps, cast it to Chromecast, then turn off your phone and it keeps running shows clearly that the content is playing from the Chromecast device. It certainly seems as if there is some kind of app management going on. Why it's not in Chromecast/GTV user interface, I have no idea.

Chromecast with Google TV could really be a good device, if it was a more powerful device and the app management was a lot smoother. I have found myself using the device less and less over time, and that's disappointing. I really want to like the device. But as it stands now, I can't recommend it over other devices as the thing on which to build your Streaming Life.

Fire TV devices on sale, but is it worthwhile?

I saw where Amazon has their Fire TV devices on sale this week. And it looks like some good prices. But is it really? Let's take a look.

The Amazon Fire TV Cube is currently on sale for $70. I'm going to cut right to the chase. If you've been thinking about one, get this deal. That's a very good price for a very good device. And, just in case you haven't been following along, I'm firmly in Camp Roku. But the Fire TV Cube is good, and this price is more than good. It's great.

The Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Max is also on sale for $45. This is a top notch streaming stick, and while the discount isn't as deep as that of the Fire TV Cube, it's still good deal.

The Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K is discounted to $35. That's a good price on a decent stick. It's not quite as good as the Fire TV Stick 4K Max, but it has been a reliable device for me.

The Amazon Fire TV Stick is on sale for $25. While that's a $15 discount, that's too much in my opinion. Likewise for the Amazon Fire TV Stick Lite. Even though it's marked down to $20, it's not a reliable device over time. For both of these, they work fine when you first take them out of the box. If your experience is like mine however, in a few months, though, it'll seem sluggish. I would skip them unless you really want a really cheap stick. It's better than the similarly prices Onn Stick from Walmart, but it pales to the the Roku sticks, and to the Fire TV 4K and Fire TV 4K Max devices. In my opinion, the higher priced Amazon sticks are worth the money. Not so much these cheap ones.

Let me offer another take on this. If you're looking to start streaming, these two cheapest Amazon Fire TV Stick devices are a good way to start cheap. But plan on upgrading in a year. If you can accept that, then sure, go for it. There are a lot worse ways to begin your Streaming Life. But, as I have indicated, a lot better ways too.

Selecting Live TV channels for Amazon Fire TV

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that I liked the On Now section of Amazon Fire TV. They call the section "On Now" and it includes a Live TV Guide.

If you're like me, you have multiple free live streaming services. Among the ones I have are Pluto TV, Xumo, Plex (which I use for local streaming as well as live TV), FreeVee (formerly IMDB TV), Sling TV (which has a free tier that doesn't get enough promotion), and Tubi TV. I have others on my Roku device, but that's all I have on my Fire TV, as those are the ones I use the most.

Fire TV will work with your live streaming apps/services and let you pick which ones you want to include in your Live TV Guide. In fact, it's better than that. It lets you pick the channels you want from each service. You can pick all of them, or you can pick a few, or all but a few.

It didn't take me long to realize that simply turning on access to those six apps put a lot of live streaming channels in the guide. More than I wanted to deal with. That's one of the drawbacks of these large live streaming services. If you don't want to watch a hundred or more streams, then you have to wade through a lot. Fire TV has solved that problem. At least, what's a problem for me.

If you only want to watch live content from one service, it's not that big of a deal. Add that service, hide the others, and you're set. But, I like content from each of them. Well, from most of them. But only a few from each.

The way I handle that is to hide all the apps/services, then unhide certain channels, only the channels I want. Then I pick my absolute favorites and Favorite them. It's actually easy to do.

First, you go into the Settings section and select Live TV.

Then you go into the Manage Channels area.

From there, hide all the Sources. Then, go into a Source that has channels you want to include in the Live TV Guide.

Next, find a channel you want to include and unhide/show it.

Repeat that for each Source that has content you want to include, and for each channel you want within each Source.

Again, if you want everything, simply unhide the Source. If you want almost everything, unhide the Source, then hide the channels to remove.

Since I only want a handful from each, I hide the Source, then unhide the specific channels I want.

There's also a section for Favorites. Going into that lets you select Favorite channels.

Those Favorites will appear at the top of your Live TV Guide.

The Live TV Guide and the ability to configure the Sources and individual channels within them is one of my favorite features of the Fire TV devices. It makes my Streaming Live easier.

Don't get me wrong about YouTube TV...

I mentioned a couple of days ago that I didn't need YouTube TV because it didn't bring enough to the table. That may sound a little harsh. But the truth is, I'm not going to get $65 worth of entertainment from it. Well, at least, most months.

As you may know -- and if you don't, you're about to find out -- the only time I really feel that I "need" a live TV streaming service is during college football season. But the rest of the year, no, I don't really need any such service.

That's not to say that YouTube TV doesn't bring anything to the table. It does. In fact, I consider it the best of the live streaming services. I just don't need one. But you might. I think you should put some serious research and thought into whether or not you need one, but if you have and concluded you need one, or even if you haven't but just want one anyway, then I think that YouTube TV is an excellent choice.

YouTube TV is the best priced of the premium live streaming services. Let me explain what I mean by that.

These cable alternatives come in a couple of flavors. Some have local channels, and some don't. Some have sports programming and some don't.

With neither locals nor sports are the budget services such as Frndly.TV and Philo. Those are $7 and $25 respectively. If you don't need or care about local channels or sports, these are the ones to look at. There is some overlap, but compare the packages and see which works better for you.

If you don't need locals but do want sports, there are Sling TV and Vidgo. I should note that Vidgo does have ABC and Fox, but none of the other local channels. Still, I'm including it in the mid-tier group. Sling TV and Vidgo run from $35 to $55 respectively.

If you want locals and sports, in addition to the other cable type of programming, you have YouTube TV, Hulu+Live TV, and DirecTV Stream. They run $65, $70, and $70 respectively.

As you can see, YouTube TV is a top tier service, with a lot of programming, including sports and local channels. It works well. Very well. The Google infrastructure behind it is probably the most trouble free of any service. It's the cheapest of the top tier packages, and my pick if I was to choose one of these.

I know it sounds like I'm Friend Zoning the service: I like you, just not that way. But it's the truth. And if I were to go that way, it's one that's at the top of my list.

I don't need a service like that. I'm able to find the content I want a lot cheaper, with an antenna and watching on-demand rather than live. But you aren't me. If you need a top tier live streaming cable alternative, YouTube TV is a good choice to drive your Streaming Life.

Can you put up an antenna?

If you want to cut the cord, or watch free local channels, an antenna is a good way to get you free local content. But can you put up an antenna?

Maybe you can. Maybe you can't. Let's find out.

A few things to keep in mind. You may be able to use an indoor antenna, if you live close enough to a TV tower. If not, you may be able to pick up stations on an outdoor antenna. And, then you need to get the right kind of antenna. That may not mean what you think. We'll come back to this.

First, are there stations close enough to pick up? And if so, will an indoor antenna work?

I like to go to AntennaWeb.Org to check. There are other places you can use, but that's been a good one for me.

Location, location, location

Put in the address you want, then either check or don't check the box regarding antenna height.

Then press GO and look at the results. Look at the results and see what antenna it recommends. 

In or out?

If the station is close enough, an indoor antenna may work. In my experience, within 10 miles usually means you'll pick up the station, if the antenna is the right type (we'll talk about that in a little bit).

If an indoor won't cut it, then an outdoor antenna may be needed. And that's a good time to take a break. And think.

If you think an indoor antenna will do the job, get one. Just make sure you can return it. They're fairly cheap, but if it won't do the job, make sure you can take it back. And, with that in mind, be careful when opening the box and using the parts. Don't tear anything up. Be good and be careful. And if it works, yay! But if not, take it back and think about getting an outdoor antenna.

If you need an outdoor antenna, first think of where you'll put it. And how high you can put it.

If you want to do it yourself, keep powerlines in mind. After all, our goal is free TV viewing, not a casket viewing. If you can't put an antenna up safely yourself, hire a professional, or do without. It's not worth the risk.

With that out of the say, if you can put up an outdoor antenna, get one that will pick up the stations you want.

HDTV, UHF, VHF, alphabet soup

First, there is no such thing as an HDTV antenna. They're TV antennae. That's all. Which means that all TV antennae are HDTV antennae. Or, more simply, a TV antenna is a TV antenna.

Only it's not quite that simple. There is an actual difference in antennae, but it's got nothing to do with HDTV. Rather, it's the channel.

Channels 1-6 are Low VHF. Channels 7-13 are High VHF. And channels 14 and up are UHF. So, which do you need? Well, look at the channels, right?

Not always. In that results image above, notice WSAV channel 3. That's Low VHF, right? Nope. Notice the RF Channel shows as 16. That means it's actually broadcasting on channel 16, so a UHF antenna is needed. Sane with WTOC channel 11. It's actually on channel 23 now. And look at the PBS station. WVAN channel 9 is on channel 8, so that's High VHF.

Confusing? Sure. But look at the RF Channel, which is the actual channel on which the station is broadcasting. That's what's important.

Confused yet?

If this is all confusing, you can actually pay people to do an analysis and recommendation for you. While I did my own research, and got my own results, I decided to compare against Tyler the Antenna Man, who runs a YouTube channel out of Pennsylvania. It was around $40, and he suggested an antenna and an installer. The downside is the installer he found for me was nearly an hour away, meaning it would cost a bit more to use that one. But, if you don't have a local installer you know about, then he at least will pick out a good one. Tyler does seem to know his stuff.

But do try it yourself first. If you're not sure, and $40 (it may be more now) would make you feel better, reach out to Tyler. Either way, check out his videos if you're thinking of an antenna. He has some great tips, and may save you some aggravation in the process.

If you don't really care about streaming, but just want to watch local channels, you may not need cable. An antenna might get you just what you need. And if you want to save money for local channels in your Streaming Life, then an antenna might help with that.

Trying YouTube TV again

A month ago, I decided to try YouTube TV again. So I subscribed.

How did that go? Not too good.

Almost every night after work, I came in, sat down, fired up the Roku device, and went right past the YouTube TV icon on the Roku menu. Same for when I fired up the Fire TV Stick or the Nvidia Shield.

Why? I mean, I paid $65 to Google to use YouTube TV for a month. So why didn't I use it?

Well, I did. Twice. No, three times. I watched some USFL games, but that was is. Nothing else.

Why not?

That's easy. There was nothing I wanted to see. I get local channels via antenna, with DVR from Tablo. That takes care of one of the things services such as YouTube TV offer. I can watch more local channels without YouTube TV than with.

Sure, there's Better Call Saul, right? Well, I bought the season, so I get the shows early the next morning anyway. And I don't have to watch live to find out if Lalo is targeting Jimmy and Kim. That can wait a few hours.

So, with live local channels not needed, and serial TV shows that I like not needed, what do I need it for?

Exactly. Which is why I won't be subscribing again. Well, not for a while. I'll consider it during football season, in order to get live ESPN, but until then? I'm fine.

I'm not saying YouTube TV isn't a good service. I'm saying I don't need to spend $65 for what it brings to my Streaming Life each month.

Microsoft Streaming Stick?

I've seen news reports this past week about a Microsoft streaming stick coming to market in the next year. The thing is, Microsoft announced a streaming stick in June 2021.

"We're also developing standalone streaming devices that you can plug into a TV or monitor, so if you have a strong internet connection, you can stream your Xbox experience," CVP of gaming experiences and platforms Liz Hamren said. There's no word on when to expect the smart TV app or streaming hardware to hit the market, but neither seems too far off.

So why is it in the news again? The best I can tell is that a reporter said it will be in 2023 before the device arrives. Only instead of "it won't be" the article was "as soon as" in tone.

In the next 12 months, Microsoft plans to release an Xbox cloud-gaming streaming device. This will likely look like an Amazon First Stick or perhaps a small, Roku-like puck. And like a Roku, the Xbox streaming device will enable you to access movie and TV services in addition to a library of games through Xbox Game Pass Ultimate.

Is this a big deal? Maybe. I kinda doubt it. While much of the Microsoft hardware I've seen has been good quality stuff -- I really like my Microsoft Surface Laptop, for instance -- good hardware doesn't mean it's something the consumer wants.

The focus of the Microsoft streaming stick seems to be gaming. Now, if it's a full-featured streaming stick that has additional gaming functionality, then it might have a market. But if its focus is gaming, with streaming as an afterthought or limited -- looking at you Xfinity Flex -- then it'll go the way of Microsoft Kin.

Do we need another streaming device? Sure, why not. If Microsoft can bring a good quality streaming device to the market, that's a good thing for consumers. But I do worry about the interface Microsoft will design. Remember Vista? And Windows 8? And Windows Me?

If a Microsoft device brings something good to market, that will be something to celebrate. Whether or not it would become a part of my Streaming Life will have to wait a year. Then we'll see.