A downside of an ad-supported Netflix subscription

It hasn't launched yet, and we don't know when it will launch, but Netflix will have an ad-supported tier.

Right now, Netflix has three streaming tiers, ranging from $10/month to $20/month. What you get on the three tiers today varies.

The $10 plan lets you watch a single stream at a time. No watching Netflix in the living room while someone else watches Netflix in a bedroom. Additionally, the content is at standard definition, not HD.

The $15 plan (actually $15.49) adds a second stream, meaning two at a time. And the streams will be HD.

The $20 plan adds another two streams, giving you four. The streams are available in UHD/4K.

All three plans let you download content to devices for offline viewing. The number of devices is equal to the number of simultaneous streams.

The coming of a new ad-supported tier brings some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that Netflix is reported to have promised no ads in children's programming, or in original movies, according to a report from Bloomberg.

Netflix has told partners it won’t run ads during original kids programs, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the company is still working out the details. In addition, some studios that have licensed Netflix the rights to kids programs won’t allow the company to run commercials in them. The company has decided original movies should stay ad-free, at least at first, the people said, which should allay the concerns of top filmmakers.

Netflix is still finalizing plans for its advertising-supported service, which means details and strategies could still change. The company aims to introduce the ad tier early next year. Netflix declined to comment on its plans beyond saying that it is still in the early stages of figuring out the advertising business.

No price for the ad-supported tier has been announced, so a really high price is not the bad news. The bad news is that unless something changes, you won't be able to download content with the ad-supported tier.

A developer found code in the Netflix app that already is laying the groundwork for an ad-supported tier. And it says no downloads on the ad-supported tier.

Text found in Netflix’s app reveals that the new plan will not allow content to be downloaded for offline viewing. This is not a surprising move given that many other streaming services only work online.

Downloads available on all plans except Netflix with ads.

Other text in the app implies that there will be a set up experience for users of the new Netflix with ads plan.

This isn't really surprising to me, or to others. But I expect some people will be disappointed with this decision.

When the ad-supported tier does launch, this will be welcome to many users, and may achieve the goal of retaining some users who might otherwise drop the service. Or it could backfire and cause some users to downgrade. Unless they make a lot of money on the ads. Either way, another option in your Streaming Life is a good thing.

NFL+ is as bad as we thought it would be

I've written before about NFL+. Twice, actually.

And, I said that it isn't actually for streamers.

Now that the NFL preseason is underway, that has certainly shown itself to be the case.

One online Website I visit regularly is Phillip Swann's TV Answer Man. Recently, he answered a question from one of his readers about not being able to watch his team (the Raiders) on NFL+. And Mr. Swann gave his reader (named Mike) the bad news.

For instance, Mike, since you live in Las Vegas, you couldn’t watch the Raiders-Dolphins game on NFL Plus last night because it was airing on one of your local channels (Fox 5 in Vegas). However, if the game was in regular season, and Fox 5 was airing it in Las Vegas, it would be available on NFL Plus.

He went on, explaining that during the regular season, even if the game was on NFL+, Mike wouldn't be able to watch it on his TV.

And if you think you’re confused now, wait until the regular season when you will only be allowed to watch the NFL Plus games on mobile devices. (The pre-season games are available on connected TV devices such as Roku.)

That's a confusing setup for pro football fans.

I'm happy the NFL is getting into streaming, with some content available, but it's not what football fans want. And I'm not sure when fans will get it, if ever.

Right now, it's hard to include a full NFL experience in your Streaming Life. But, maybe this first step will lead to bigger steps down the road.

Big Ten tops SEC

If you know me, you know that I'm a big fan of college football. And that I am an SEC fan as well. The school that my daughter attended is an SEC school, and I've been to some of their games since before she was born.

I'm talking about the University of Georgia, which is a team I've followed since childhood. I've also followed Georgia Tech, as my mother favored the Yellow Jackets over the Bulldogs in my childhood. And I've followed Georgia Southern, since football was restarted in the 1980s. But generally, people think of me as an SEC partisan, and I won't argue with that assessment at all.

I've enjoyed the domination the SEC has had in college football, winning 13 titles since 2000, and baseball, winning 9 titles since 2000.

The SEC was the first conference to hold a championship game, something every conference now does. It's almost as if the SEC runs college football. They don't, but they do carry some heavy influence. There are a lot of SEC haters out there.

Usually, you'll hear me singing the praises of the SEC. But today, I have to give props to the Big Ten. If you want to watch major college football without cable, and cheaply, the Big Ten is actually your best bet. Or will be after this season.

After the latest round of realignment, kicked off by last year's announcement that Oklahoma and Texas would leave the Big 12 for the SEC, some TV deals came up for renewal. The SEC is leaving CBS after this season, and going all in on ESPN. And the Big Ten takes advantage of that by signing a deal with CBS, Fox, and NBCUniversal.

The Big Ten on Thursday announced a new seven-year media rights deal with CBS, Fox and NBC that begins July 1, 2023, and runs through the 2029-30 season. The multiplatform agreement is believed to be the largest in the history of college athletics with industry sources putting the approximate value of the deal at a record $1.2 billion annually.

Spanning five linear networks, including the Big Ten Network and FS1, the deal positions the Big Ten with three premier windows to show college football games on broadcast television. Fox will air a featured "Big Noon" game on Saturdays at noon ET with CBS following at 3:30 p.m. and NBC wrapping up each week with "Big Ten Saturday Night" in primetime.

NBC will have games available on Peacock streaming service. CBS games will be available on Paramount+ as part of the live local CBS stream.

It'll still be easy to watch SEC games without cable. However, the cheapest streaming service that carries ESPN is Sling TV (Orange) which is $35/month. And, to add the SEC Network, it's another $11/month for the Sports Extra package.

The Big Ten is cheaper to watch, and is big time football. It's actually one of the better deals for having big time college football as a part of your Streaming Life.

Google to push increased onboard storage on Google TV devices

One of the things I absolutely do not like about Chromecast with Google TV is the limited onboard storage of the device.

I've ranted about this before. A couple of times, actually.

Here's the problem.

Chromecast with Google TV comes with 8 GB onboard storage. That's four times what you get on a Roku Ultra, by the way. But there's a catch. Google TV (also Android TV) devices can get full, and won't let you add more apps once the device is full. Or, more likely, if the app you're trying to add exceeds the amount of available storage. That's not good.

To deal with this, you have to remove an app. Maybe more than one, if the app you're wanting is really large. But you have to do it before you can add the new app.

Most streaming devices have this problem. Amazon's Fire TV devices can encounter this as well. Same with Apple TV devices. However, those devices, particularly the Apple TV devices, have a lot more storage. And that's what Google is wanting from their devices, according to NextTV:

Google met with manufacturing partners who use its TVOS products last month at a closed-door event, discussing ways to optimize their gadgets for the pending release of Android 13.

Google encouraged a number of new features, including integration of connected TV devices with fitness trackers, as well as support for Bluetooth 5.0.

The push for additional memory comes amid rancor in the tech press late last spring that Google's own Chromecast with Google TV device and its 8GB of random access memory isn't up to the task of handling Android 13.

"8GB of storage was not enough for a streaming stick in 2020, and it’s even worse a couple of years later," 9to5 Google lamented. "This is restrictive enough for security updates, but it also limits how often Google can address bugs and other quirks that may arise. Worse yet, it also prevents any form of major system update -- or at least makes it much more difficult."

Google can handle things with the next release of Chromecast devices. I assume they will, after urging other manufacturers to do that. And it would be good for Google and those other manufacturers to increase the onboard store.

But this brings up a question: why doesn't Roku have this problem? After all, they have the least amount of onboard storage.

Well, quite simply, Roku handles things for you. When the onboard storage is full, Roku will remove an app from your device, but leave it in the list of installed apps. The name and icon for the app is there, even though the app isn't actually on the device. There's nothing to indicate the app isn't on the device. When you go to launch that app, the system will download it -- you'll see a quick progress bar (circle, actually) that goes to 100% -- and the app will launch. Mere seconds is all it takes. It's almost seamless. If not for the 2 seconds or so that the download window appears, you wouldn't even know it.

So, Google, Amazon, and Apple make you remove apps when the device gets full. And Google is the one that does this the most. When you remove the app, it's no longer listed on the device, and you have to search for it and re-download it in order to launch it.

With Roku, it manages everything for you, and the app is still on your menu.

That's actually a better way of doing it, in my opinion. But, if Google does increase onboard storage, and gets other manufacturers to do the same, that will make the Streaming Life of many people so much better.

My Linux desktop died

I don't think the recent storm had anything to do with it. I think it being an old device was all that was the problem. But what a problem it was. And is. But not an insurmountable problem.

On Wednesday night, I pulled up the Linux desktop computer and there was a major display problem. Now, realize that I have a KVM switch controlling input/output on four devices (three, actually, but it handles four). I had been using a Raspberry Pi, then switched to a Windows desktop to do some stuff. When I finished that, I switched it to the Linux desktop. And only then did I see the problem.

That morning, the computer was working fine. I had used it to check email when I woke up, and when I left for work on Wednesday morning, everything was fine. Wednesday night, around 8:00 PM, when I next went to the device, there was a display issue. The screen looked really bad. I was worried it was a cable, but the Num Lock and Caps Lock buttons didn't toggle the associated lights, so I knew the computer itself was locked up. So, I powered down, waited a little bit, then powered up.

The computer wouldn't start. It's a Dell desktop, and the light on the power button was amber, and gave two flashes, then seven flashes. The codes I've found indicated amber and white flashes, not both being amber. And the online data conflicts, but one indicated a CPU problem, and the other indicated a memory problem. Either is a problem.

As it's not the only computer I have, and not the only Linux computer I have, I decided to wait until the weekend to deal with it. So, I unplugged it, and went about my business, knowing that Sunday afternoon would be a busy afternoon.

You see, it was too late to begin on Wednesday night (not urgent, as I have other computers), and I had things to do Thursday and Friday nights. Saturday was an out of town trip, and I wasn't sure how I'd feel after getting home Saturday evening. So, I decided I'd tackle things Sunday afternoon. And this afternoon, that's what I'll do.

First thing I'll do is remove the SSD I installed and put it in another old Dell desktop that's on the floor next to the bad device. I had two from which to choose when I decided to replace the hard drive with an SSD, and picked the one on the left. Well, now that the one on the left has gone bad, I'll put the drive in the one on the right. I may have to start over, but if the drive will work as is, or good enough to reconfigure easily to that computer, I'll be back up and running this afternoon. Then I'll start working on the bad desktop device.

I'll put the old hard drive back in and see how it goes. I may end up having to buy new memory modules for it, and if so, I'll deal with that. But I may have a bad CPU, and if that's the case, I'm not sure if I want to take the trouble to deal with that. I'll find out soon enough.

I did decide to check out what it would have cost me if I needed to buy a computer to run. A new one ran over $500. But an older device that would run Linux was under $150. So, more than I wanted to spend, but not terribly bad. With all the computers I have access to, my Streaming Life isn't impacted in any major way at all. And I'm fortunate that way.

How most people feel about ads

I read an article last week that talked about a new survey on streaming viewers and their thoughts regarding ads.

I've said again and again that I'm fine with ads. I watch free ad-supported television (FAST) services. I watch free over the air -- meaning ad-supported -- television; the same TV that people have been watching for decades. I pay for the cheapest Hulu tier, which has ads. And I don't like ad blockers on Web browsers. So, no, I'm not bothered by ads.

But some people are. And they have every right to be. I may not agree with their assessment, but they're certainly entitled to their opinion. So, how to most people feel? Well, according to Infillion, not that much different than I feel about them.

Key findings include:

• 73% of consumers feel the ads they see are repetitive
• 67% of consumers prefer ad-supported streaming options to ad-free ones
• 61% of consumers multitask during ad breaks when streaming content

This actually surprised me. Based on the complaints I read on some support Websites, many people really hate commercials. However, according to the survey, only 1/3 of people feel strongly enough to prefer ad-free services, which costs money. Two-thirds would put up with commercials to save money.

This tells me that the loud complainers are just loud, but a minority. And that maybe I'm not all that different from the average user.

I certainly agree that many ads seem repetitive. I prefer FAST to paid services. And I'll pull out the cell phone and check email or do something else when a commercial comes on. Unless, of course, the commercial gets my attention. Then, yes, I'll watch the commercial. So advertisers, it's up to you to keep my attention.

Ads are a part of my Streaming Life, and I'm okay with that. And so are most of you.

Walmart+ will include Paramount+ ... but there is a down side

Starting in September, Walmart+ adds a new benefit. The Walmart service will include a subscription to Paramount+ (Essential plan) in its $98/year price.

If that sounds like a strike at Amazon Prime, that's because it probably is. Walmart+ doesn't offer as much as Amazon Prime, but this goes a ways towards changing that. Paramount+ doesn't have anywhere near the amount of video available as Amazon Prime Video has, but it still has a lot of content, and some content you can't get with Prime Video. Mainly, I'm talking about Paramount+ original content, which will show up on Prime Video eventually, just like everything else.

Amazon Prime is $140/year. Walmart+ is $98/year. That's actually a pretty good deal. By itself, the Paramount+ Essential plan is $5/month, or $50/year (two months free). That's over half the cost of Walmart+.

That means you're getting 50% more value for the price. And yes, the price will not increase, according to the news release from Walmart.

The streaming service benefit becomes yet another way Walmart is uniquely positioned to give members more for less with Walmart+, whether in-store, at the gas pump, on groceries, listening to music, and now when watching their favorite movies and shows. Walmart+ will remain $98 a year or $12.95 a month and include the Paramount+ Essential Plan subscription with an added $59 value.

"We know Walmart+ is providing members real value in their every day – from grocery shopping to filling up their tank and more," said Chris Cracchiolo, senior vice president and general manager of Walmart+. "With the addition of Paramount+, we are demonstrating our unique ability to help members save even more and live better by delivering entertainment for less, too. Eighty-five percent of U.S. households use streaming services1 and Paramount+ has the premium content and broad appeal that our members are looking for – like Walmart, they have something for everyone. We’re excited about the launch and what comes next for Walmart+."

So, what's the down side? Well, I've not found any word on the possibility of upgrading to the Premium plan. You see, the Premium plan is the one that includes a live local CBS station feed. The NFL and a soccer league will have games available as a separate feed as part of the Essential plan, so those won't be missed. But the live local CBS feed requires the higher priced plan. And, as I said, there is nothing to be found regarding upgrading to the Premium plan.

Not that the Essential plan is bad. It's not. It's the one I would choose if I wanted a Paramount+ plan. During college football season, I often subscribe to the Paramount+ Premium ($10) plan to get SEC on CBS games. During the rest of the year, if Paramount+ comes up in my subscription rotation (read this about that), I'll subscribe to the Essential ($5) plan.

I already subscribe to Amazon+, so I'll get the added benefit in September, and that's a good thing. But, when the SEC on CBS game is one I want to watch, I'll just watch it from the antenna. Which is what I should have been doing all along. Things have a way of working out, don't they.

If you subscribe to Walmart+, you get a new benefit, and a pretty darn good one at that. If you've been on the fence about subscribing, this may push you over. Paramount+ is a good addition to one's Streaming Life, and getting it included with Walmart+ makes it even better.

Enjoying an antenna

For years after I cut cable, I did without local TV. Well, not entirely, but off and on for years. It's complicated.

After dropping cable in early 2011, I did without local TV. Eventually, I put up an antenna. It was actually my mother-in-law that prompted that. She wanted to save money on cable, and when the possibility of putting up an antenna was floated, she was skeptical at first.

Oh, sure, she knew all about TV antennae and watching local channels that way. But she thought the technology had changed and that old TV antennae didn't work any more. She was half right. Technology certainly had changed, but the old antennae still worked.

She didn't have an old antenna, so we got her one, and my brother-in-law and I put it up for her. She found her local channels -- mostly the station that carried MeTV -- and was happy.

After putting up her antenna, I decided to put one up on our roof. That was an easy enough process, and I tied the antenna lead into the old cables that were used for watching cable TV. I had to re-do some of the connections, as by then, the cable company was now the Internet Service Provider. So, isolating the cable run for the Internet from the other cable runs was easy enough, and watching TV over the air was once again doable.

After moving, I was back into a situation of not having an antenna, so I just did without. When Comcast ran a special where you could get Internet and cable cheaper than Internet alone, I went that route, and was able to watch local channels again. However, after a year, that special went away and I dropped back to Internet only, and did without.

A couple of years ago, I put up an antenna at my mother's old house, which is still in the family. I put both a Tablo and Air TV setup at that house, with the Air TV integrating into the Sling TV app, making it more convenient for the people living there (they subscribe to Sling TV). I set up Tablo Connect on the Tablo system and use the Fire TV device to watch TV from the antenna. I paid for that antenna setup, and I'm gonna use it.

I have an antenna to set up at my house, but haven't bothered to put it up. The Tablo Connect setup works, so I'm using it. I'll eventually put up the antenna here, but not today. Or even this week. But one day. Probably.

I'm able to do without local channels, as I've done exactly that for some time. I don't subscribe to any of the expensive live TV services that carry local channels, because if I really want to watch local channels, I have Tablo Connect. I've really enjoyed having a TV antenna back in my Streaming Life.

Rumors of Fire TV Recast being discontinued

According to AFTV News, Amazon is preparing to discontinue the Fire TV Recast line. The Website cites both Amazon.com, BestBuy.com, and other online retailer listings as part of the reason for drawing their conclusion.

It has been 4 years since the Fire TV Recast was released and it appears as though the over-the-air (OTA) DVR companion to Fire TV devices is being discontinued. The Fire TV Recast has been a consistent staple of the Fire TV lineup ever since its release in 2018, but now, for the first time, Amazon is no longer selling the cheaper of the two Fire TV Recast models and both versions are no longer available across several other 3rd-party retailers.

Searching Amazon for the Fire TV Recast no longer brings up a listing for the model equipped with two tuners and a 500 GB hard drive. Only the Fire TV Recast with four tuners and 1 TB of storage is currently available for purchase. Clicking to see the buy options on the cheaper 500 GB model’s review page is now redirecting to the more expensive model. Best Buy, on the other hand, does still have the 500 GB model for sale, however, it is now marked as a clearance item and the 1 TB model is no longer available at Best Buy. Both B&H (500 GB & 1 TB) and New Egg (500 GB & 1 TB) list both Fire TV Recast models as unavailable, which is further evidence that the Fire TV Recast is being phased out.

I did some checking, and sure enough, Best Buy used to list the larger Fire TV Recast as an item, but discontinued carrying it somewhere along the way. It's not simply sold out at Best Buy, it's no longer an item, though it one was.

Now, this could mean that a major refresh is in order, but there have been no rumors to that effect. So, it may be that AFTV News is correct that Amazon will be discontinuing the Fire TV Recast.

I have to say that of the three OTA DVRs that I've tried in the past couple of years, it's the one I like the least, though I do see its appeal. It does a good job of integrating live OTA TV listings into the Fire TV interface. However, mine has always been buggy -- it lost connectivity a lot; a lot -- and is the one I use the least. If you've seen my recent posts about DVR, I've mentioned Tablo and Air TV, but rarely ever mention Fire TV Recast. There's a reason. And if AFTV News is correct, my experience may not be the only bad one.

It's a shame that the setup never worked like I would have liked. The integration of Live TV into the overall interface worked well. I just wish the device had been reliable. Now it looks like it won't be in anyone's Streaming Life soon.

Another year, another Hulu price increase

Seems like it was around a year ago that Hulu increased their prices. The reason it seems that way is because it was that way. Last September, in fact, Hulu had a price increase.

I didn't complain too much about it because it wasn't a big increase, and Hulu hadn't increased in years. In fact, Hulu's last price change before that was actually a drop in the price of the basic tier. This time, though, we're not so lucky. Hulu's basic tier is going up from $7/month to $8/month, starting October 10, 2022. But, one Website offers some hope about the deals Hulu often offers:

It’s worth noting that customers usually can find a discount deal on Hulu’s standalone on-demand service at various points in the year. National Streaming Day, Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales have happened in the past. It may be worth monitoring those to see if a better price becomes available, at least temporarily.

The price increase is not that bad, considering how much everything else has gone up in the past two years, so I won't raise too much of a stink. I'll pay it, and not be happy about it, but that's about as far as it goes.

That that use the no-ads Hulu plan will pay $2/month more. And other plans owned by Disney are going up, too.

A new Disney+ ad-supported tier will be introduced in December for $8/month. That's the price of the current ad-free tier, which will then go up to $11/month.

I'm actually thinking about a new plan that is being introduced in December. That is Hulu and Disney+, both ad-supported, for $10/month, which seems like a really good price.

Price increases are never good, but I think that overall, it will have minimal effect on my Streaming Life. I may even expand it a little with the Hulu/Disney+ combo plan.