It's the Beginning of the End of Satellite TV in the US (qz.com) 254
An anonymous reader shares a report: "We've launched our last satellite," John Donovan, CEO of AT&T Communications, said in a meeting with analysts on Nov. 29. The AT&T executive effectively declared the end of the satellite-TV era with that statement. AT&T owns DirecTV, the US's largest satellite company -- and second largest TV provider overall, behind Comcast. DirecTV will continue offering satellite-TV service -- it had nearly 20 million satellite video subscribers as of September, per company filings. But the company will focus on growing its online video business instead, Donovan said.
It has a new set-top box, where people can get the same TV service they'd get with satellite, through an internet-connected box they can install themselves. It expects that box to become a greater share of its new premium-TV service installations in the first half of 2019. It also sells cheaper, TV packages with fewer channels through its DirecTV Now and WatchTV streaming services, which work with many smart TVs and streaming media players like Roku and Amazon Fire TV devices. The practice of getting TV through satellite dishes propped up in backyards and perched on rooftops first took hold in the US in the last 1970s and early 1980s, after TV networks like HBO and Turner Broadcasting System started sending TV signals to cable providers via satellites. People in areas without cable or broadcast TV began putting up their own dishes to receive the TV signals, and that grew into a TV business of its own.
It has a new set-top box, where people can get the same TV service they'd get with satellite, through an internet-connected box they can install themselves. It expects that box to become a greater share of its new premium-TV service installations in the first half of 2019. It also sells cheaper, TV packages with fewer channels through its DirecTV Now and WatchTV streaming services, which work with many smart TVs and streaming media players like Roku and Amazon Fire TV devices. The practice of getting TV through satellite dishes propped up in backyards and perched on rooftops first took hold in the US in the last 1970s and early 1980s, after TV networks like HBO and Turner Broadcasting System started sending TV signals to cable providers via satellites. People in areas without cable or broadcast TV began putting up their own dishes to receive the TV signals, and that grew into a TV business of its own.
Satellite/cell Internet will replace that as well (Score:2)
Just like internet basically replaced broadcast TV, the reason why satellite TV will decline is in part because of the rise of wireless internet options (including satellite internet, like the satellites SpaceX plans to put up [fortune.com]).
My mother lives fairly far out of a major city, to the point where cable is not offered - in the past few years she has gotten all internet and video options from a cellular wireless hotspot.
So why would she want to get an expensive satellite TV option when she can do anything over a
Re: (Score:2)
Just like internet basically replaced broadcast TV, the reason why satellite TV will decline is in part because of the rise of wireless internet options (including satellite internet, like the satellites SpaceX plans to put up [fortune.com]).
My mother lives fairly far out of a major city, to the point where cable is not offered - in the past few years she has gotten all internet and video options from a cellular wireless hotspot.
So why would she want to get an expensive satellite TV option when she can do anything over a fairly decent wireless internet connection?
Why indeed? Traditional TV is an overpriced pile of crap that cannot die quickly enough and I will not be crying any rivers when it does.
Re:Satellite/cell Internet will replace that as we (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to have satellite tv. Now I have an antenna, Netflix and Prime. I'm thinking about dropping the streaming services as I've more or less stoped using them. It will cost nothing to keep my antenna on the roof.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Satellite/cell Internet will replace that as we (Score:4, Insightful)
Pair it with a DVR if you want something other than soaps in the daytime. Broadcast TV still has some good stuff in the primetime hours.
Re: (Score:3)
I set up an antenna indoors, soon hope to get a slightly larger one outdoors to improve on a couple channels' reception....
But I get all the 3 major networks, and Fox...and local PBS.
Each of those
Re: (Score:2)
I looked into Channel Master, and actually looked at a set up a friend of mine opted for.
At that time, it didn't seem to offer the capabilities that Tivo offered me...I didn't like the guide, and ability to stream from internet also seemed lacking on the channel master AND...the main thing is, that you could not seem to DVR all the local channels on the CM, or at least I recall there were a lot of things you could not DVR off the channel
Re: Satellite/cell Internet will replace that as w (Score:2)
I get like a dozen+ HD channels, including all major networks, typical sportsing coverage, et al.
But I live in a downtown area on an International border.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you get from your antenna that is worth the while?
Well let's see. For me it's: local news, some sporting events, and re-runs of shows I enjoy (Frasier, That '70s Show, etc). Paired with a MythTV backend and several Raspberry Pi front-ends running Kodi as the PVR front-end, it's a really enjoyable setup for free, over-the-air content.
Re: (Score:3)
Relying on the internet when the providers are hell-bent on acting like an unregulated monopoly is a problem. People like you just rolling over and accepting it is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Because at some point her wireless provider will either add a super high data cap or be able to throttle video traffic.
She used to have a 10GB data cap (T-Mobile) which I found I could increase to 22GB, but then I found a wireless business reseller [wirelessbuy.com] that still uses T-Mobile's network, but provides unlimited bandwidth for a lower fee than the 22GB capped service. It has a slower uplink for some reason but faster download speeds - perfect for what she is doing anyway.
or be able to throttle video traffic.
I'm
Re: (Score:2)
So why would she want to get an expensive satellite TV option when she can do anything over a fairly decent wireless internet connection?
She wouldn't, but there are an awful lot of parts of the country where wireless is minimal or absent, and satellite is pretty much it. Not very many people in them, of course, but services like this have been a huge boon to RV'ers and hunting camps across the country. They will be sorely missed.
I think you need the reality check (Score:2)
That's just another Musk pipe dream. Will never happen......As with anything Musk says, run it through a reality check before saying 'what if'
A) None of what I said relies on the Musk satellites working, wireless cellular will cover enough areas to have the same effect.
B) It sure seems like Starlink will happen, why wouldn't it? The plan seems sound and they can basically piggyback a lot of launches on top of other deliveries or test launches. They already have FCC approval for 7500 satellites, it's not l
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the ROI for Starlink or similar will ultimately be poor.
The problem is for any aggregation of population, terrestrial strategies are going to compete. Meaning the market of people best served by a strategy like Starlink is probably going to be 10% of the population at the very most optimistic, I'd wager more like 2-3%. Of that population, I'd say most of them could pay a few hundred dollars to get an antenna setup to get acceptable cellular coverage for LTE which would be 'good enough'. Many of
Re: (Score:2)
Not Under My Back Yard? That's taking it to an extreme only possible in California. But then Cali invented Not Over My Back Yard when people protested orbital power satellites (PG&E's last desperate gasp at building a new power plant in NIMBYfornia).
Slow as ever I see (Score:2)
that tunnel was sued out of existence.
Exactly why I mentioned they already had FCC clearance, the only external force that was going to possibly delay them - with that cleared, just what do you think will happen to stop them? Are the Moon-Men going to sue them?
Nothing like constantly shifting your argument to ever more stupid positions.
few more lines ... (Score:2)
Few more lines and the /. summary would contain TFA whole.
Let me save you some time and some ad views by pasting them here:
We're fucked (Score:4, Interesting)
I really miss when there were consumer protection laws and things in place to prevent bullshit like this from happening. I'd rather pay taxes than pay unregulated extortion rates to a private corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
THings are about to change. We have multiple satellite systems coming that will be able to download at 1G rate to a building.
In addition, more and more communities are putting together fiber-as-utility for local residences/businesses. Both of these make great sense.
In particular, fiber will allow 10-100 GB connections to homes and residences. One nice thing about that, is that it allows a building to put in their own servers, as opposed to using AWS/Google/etc cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, last I checked there's a pretty sizeable chunk of the US who can't get cable at all, much less fiber optic lines. I happen to fall into that chunk. In fact, my 4G LTE coverage maxes out at about 8 mb/s. Yeah. You read that correctly. And considering that 5G requires even MORE towers closer together, I don't see that 5G build out covering the large rur
Re: (Score:2)
You see, last I checked there's a pretty sizeable chunk of the US who can't get cable at all, much less fiber optic lines. I happen to fall into that chunk. In fact, my 4G LTE coverage maxes out at about 8 mb/s. Yeah. You read that correctly.
Have you tried pole mounted antenna with a booster?
Re:We're fucked (Score:5, Informative)
What makes you think it's a signal issue? If you're surrounded by people whose only broadband is cellular and a rural tower is covering dozens of square miles, your share may not be much.
Re: (Score:2)
When I'm with my rural family, it's absolutely a signal issue. Drive car 30 meters up the mountain, solid signal and high bandwidth (yes it's a tower covering a large area, but we are talking about 1 person per 50 acres or so, so it's not like the tower was vaguely busy.
Re: (Score:2)
As already said, if you're getting any signal at all in LTE, it's probably not the air interface that's slow. Plenty of rural tower sites, especially once you're off in the 'partner networks' part of the country, with one copper DS3/T3 backhaul (if not even less), and you'd get that speed 50 feet from the tower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
HoAs ought to be illegal....
Re: (Score:2)
I do wish that you soybean farmers would plant more for edamame, as well as Ginger root and other items from China.
Depending on what you are using the net for, you can get more bandwidth from sat Internet. Of course, ping time will sux big time. BUT, this would work until starlink/1-web are available.
And I think that AC is talking about the massive subsidies farmers get. I realize that most of it goes to the large ones, but I am assuming that you
Re: (Score:3)
Those "taxpayer checks" also tend to average vastly less than we pay in every year.
The less-populated states tend to receive more in federal spending than they pay. There's a helpful table in this article: https://www.politifact.com/cal... [politifact.com]
Now, your particular state may be one of the outliers. But "rural areas" are generally a net financial loss to the government. And hey, at least you got $30 from the tariff stupidity. I just got higher prices on everything.
We already do pay more for pretty much everything
Except for housing and food. They tend to be a very large chunk of most people's spending. Which is why rural areas generally h
MBA's.... (Score:2)
2018: "Hey! We can cancel that expensive satellite service and force users to buy our shitty DSL service! It's brilliant!"
2021: "SpaceX's new StarLink service starts bundling cable TV channels as part of its new Internet service."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: MBA's.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2018: "Hey! We can cancel that expensive satellite service and force users to buy our shitty DSL service! It's brilliant!"
2021: "SpaceX's new StarLink service starts bundling cable TV channels as part of its new Internet service."
They're not shutting down service now. They launched the last two DirecTV satellites in 2014-15 and with a 20 year lifespan it'll probably be in service until 2035-ish. What they're saying is that they don't see a return on investment on sending up any new TV satellites. The future threat from Starlink is certainly one possible reason, but the main reason is wireless broadband and streaming services. If you can get it I'm not surprised customers ditch DVRs and GEO-satellite Internet. If anything it's SpaceX
Re: (Score:3)
If anything it's SpaceX that should be concerned that their potential subscriber base is dwindling, at least in the US.
I don't think you understand that dearth of broadband availability in the U.S. I'd estimate that at least half of the U.S. (by population) has either no broadband at all, or has broadband of little utility. Even if Starlink were limited to the U.S., the potential market is HUGE.
Re: (Score:2)
wrong (Score:2)
What will NOT be done, is a sat system that is devoted to TV, esp. at these prices with the lousy service.
So why a box? (Score:2)
If you already have broadband, you could just run a directv app on your existing devices or buy an inexpensive one.
Though I did get such an app (att watch tv) bundled with my phone service and itâ(TM)s terrible... so maybe their capacity to write one is limited.
Re: (Score:2)
If you already have broadband, you could just run a directv app on your existing devices or buy an inexpensive one.
Though I did get such an app (att watch tv) bundled with my phone service and itâ(TM)s terrible... so maybe their capacity to write one is limited.
I'm guessing they're going to push their fiber with a DirectTvNow bundle at some point. If they can get DTVN a better interface so that it is easier to find things and make the DVR more flexible such as not auto deleting old shows, they will have a decent product. I have it and like not being thethered to their box so I can watch it virtually anywhere thanks to the magic of VPNs. Reliability is still an issue - it occasionally goes balck on me and I have to go to the menu to resatrt the program, and not all
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry I wasn't clear that that was my point: this is a product for people who have broadband, all of whom already have internet-connected devices. AT&T's box does nothing for such people *and* does nothing for people without broadband (a group AT&T is plainly abandoning).
What the hell?!?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good news! If all of those concurrent recordings were intended for individual viewing then you aren't watching them live (well 6 of them) and you could just stream them on-demand (provided your streaming option offers them).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stream to DVR while you are not actually watching -> fast forward all you want while watching.
cable cutting dilema (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People Still Watch TV? (Score:3)
Though I understood satellite and satellite internet are currently the only way to communicate in very rural areas.
So (Score:3)
I guess I am doomed, we have lousy internet, only one cable carrier available and they won't or can't deliver better than 25 Mbps. We can get a DSL signal but it never gets better than 12-16 Mbps. With me working from the house, the GF watching Amazon and her kid streaming music the net connection is choppy and unreliable. Spectrum cable SUCKS, they advertise starting at 60 Mbps and up to 100 Mbps but no one in the rural area I live in gets better than 25 Mbps.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're working form home, just put in a decent router with QoS and prioritize you over everything else. Streaming audio/video would never notice a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
With me working from the house, the GF watching Amazon and her kid streaming music the net connection is choppy and unreliable.
If you cut the Amazon Video back to standard definition and the music back to a more lossy codec, does it still stutter?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I am doomed, we have lousy internet, only one cable carrier available and they won't or can't deliver better than 25 Mbps....With me working from the house, the GF watching Amazon and her kid streaming music the net connection is choppy and unreliable.
People have already said you should be applying prioritizing to your network so your work machine gets the best service. 25 mbps sounds like it should be enough if you're not trying to stream 4k at the same time. I know of people who have half your speed and can still work from home.
Re: (Score:2)
Sit around the TV and enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
She "needs" the Today show and an antenna just isn't getting that for me right now.
Today is on free-to-air NBC. Have you reported reception problems to your local NBC affiliate?
Does NBC need more than a 12' mast? (Score:2)
I could try a pole with an antenna on top, which worked great at my last home, except my current HOA won't allow that.
It looks like your HOA is imposing rules about TV antenna mast height that "preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal" [fcc.gov]. If the mast required for NBC affiliate reception is less than 12 feet tall, put it up anyway and tell your HOA to forward its complaint against you to the FCC.
to heck with AT&T & DirecTV (Score:3)
i just dont watch TV anymore, its just not worth the annoyances to watch
Re: (Score:2)
Who uses the channel up/channel down buttons to flip channels?
Sports bars / books need it or very good internet (Score:2)
Sports bars / books need it or very good internet with no caps
Will Att run fiber to an bar at the same cost as they pay for TV? and that fee has free internet at least 50-100 down (no caps). Or with give them LTE / 5G with no caps, no deprioritization and no Throttling.
Re: (Score:2)
dish network does not have NFL ticket, MSG, yes, ESPN College Extra.
And the people that live in the middle of nowhere? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess they are just screwed. I know you city dwellers that never leave the city, don't get why people live in "flyover country", but there are a TON of potential customers that will be out of all television. Most live too far away for over the air, now that all the signals are digital and their power to reach is very limited. I do a lot of traveling in the midwest. Satellite dishes are EVERYWHERE. Someone will come along to take over that market.
Dish, no doubt. In addition, as 5G rolls out it will be a viable option as well; and a lot cheaper to run than ghaving a satelite option. I think satelite TV will be dead in 5 years or so. As oteh roptions become more readily available compaiies will look to dump the costs assocuiated with satellite and won't care about the small fraction that lose TV all together. They'll wait until it is small enough to avoid a political backlash when people compalin the their representatives.
What about Dish Network? (Score:2)
Just because AT&T says they are going to move away form Satellite TV doesn't mean its the end for it. Not unless Dish Network also exits the market (something I have seen no signs they intend doing)
End of DirecTV maybe, but not satellite TV! (Score:2)
As others said already on here, many of the people who live in rural areas are interested in satellite television, at least until the day comes when they're all able to get broadband fiber or cable. Judging by the lack of interest in the monopolies in the U.S. to roll out service to new areas, I'd say satellite still provides a viable alternative for people for a LONG time.
AT&T is probably just not so interested in hanging onto the DirecTV service in its long-term plans. That hardly means satellite TV
Re: (Score:2)
...should be illegal.
The fine they would pay is a lot less than the money they spent overpaying for DirectTV just as DirectTV's main business started circling the drain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL -- and I can't get Satellite Internet. DirectTV, DiSH, et al were not a good option for me (price vs bandwidth caps).
I tried ViaSAT. Tried. *COULD NOT GET IT INSTALLED*
After two months of trying -- I just gave up.
They INSIST on installing on the roof. I won't allow it.
Right next to the roof and where I wanted the install to happen is a three point 60ft tower. It's rock solid. Install there. They simply refused -- and offered putting a pole in the middle of the yard and trenching a line in would work. Ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That will remove the need to use profit on the next satellite.
Re: (Score:2)
Just think of all the channels they have coming off those birds, I would not be surprised if there is currently a few gigabits per second of raw data falling onto each ATT/DTV dish. Of course your satellite box does not handle that whole fire hose of data at once, only handling the data in the chunk of spectrum that it is tuned to
I don't see how it'll scale, as satellite TV has far more viewers per channel than satellite Internet. Spread all those Gbps over the whole countryside, and how many kbps will each subscriber end up with?
Re: (Score:3)
Spread all those Gbps over the whole countryside, and how many kbps will each subscriber end up with?
The same way HughesNet already does it.
In other words, harsh monthly caps for all bytes sent or received outside a window from 01:00 through 04:59 local time.
Re: (Score:3)
IPTV is multicasted, which is fairly efficient. Even today, Europe makes heavy use of this.
Re: To me, AT&T seems out of control. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds great... if you have a wide enough pipe with which to receive.
And... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
IPTV is multicasted
Only if your ISP is also your IPTV provider.
Multicast on the public Internet isn't a thing.
Re: (Score:3)
nope. IPTV is multicasted, which is fairly efficient. Even today, Europe makes heavy use of this.
Oh don't worry, I'm sure AT&T will find a way to fuck it up. I'm sure they'll force you to rent some shitty proprietary box from them and limit any support they provide to the absolute minimum required by law, sorry I mean whatever they can get away with through forced arbitration. Want to use your own box? Hahaha not with AT&T, peasant!
Re: (Score:2)
I think Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime/YouTube had already opened that door. Besides with current video/audio compression methods, and how we get faster bandwidth, with home users exceed 100mbs streaming video isn't that big of an issue anymore. Even with 4k.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Divide by 8 and change for me. AT&T keeps trying to upsell me to 18 megabit service, and I keep explaining to them that they're not even able to provide the 12 megabit service I already am paying for.
Re: (Score:2)
Just use satellite internet with M-Bone IPs duh!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Seriously although, I could bet that they aren't going to use multicasting even if the technology exists since the 1990. I bet that they will prefer to bill each customer for the bandwidth they use individually, multiplying the profits.
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC, AT&T was strangling Uverse so that they could force more people onto Direct TV thereby freeing bandwith. Now they are doing a 180? Strange!
Satellite Internet caps (Score:5, Insightful)
Rural users tend to have satellite TV in part because no cable or fiber-to-the-home provider serves their address. Streaming video over satellite Internet at $5 per GB is unlikely to prove economic as a substitute.
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo.
I know lots of my clients are sub-10Mbit, with many sub-5Mbit. 3MBit is common. Attempts at streaming are quite painful for them. At least one person I know is 1Mbit DSL.
These are places Comcast will never run cable, nor is it worth the telecom to invest in the infrastructure to improve DSL beyond the token amount it is today.
Without satellite, they're basically done with TV since the mountains around here make OTA basically impossible unless you're in the "city" (I use that term loosely for what cons
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Satellite Internet caps (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is that it won't be viable for the rural population to go without, but at the same time launching satellites won't be economic when supported *solely* by the rural population.
I think they are *much* better served by sorting out a strategy for economicly viable high speed internet rather than continuing to try to find ways to have them not require internet so much. If they have satellite broadcast television and the urban population breaks from that, either way the rural population would be missing
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that it won't be viable for the rural population to go without, but at the same time launching satellites won't be economic when supported *solely* by the rural population.
I think they are *much* better served by sorting out a strategy for economicly viable high speed internet rather than continuing to try to find ways to have them not require internet so much. If they have satellite broadcast television and the urban population breaks from that, either way the rural population would be missing out.
5G as a possibility?
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the hype I hear is around smaller cells to better serve urban populations. I haven't read a whole lot about how they are expecting or not expecting 5G to make a difference in rural/mountainous areas.
I would love to see any material that expressly documents 5G from the perspective of those markets.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a very good point that somehow despite all our advances, running terrestial communication lines is somehow impossible now, even though all these sites, for example, have grid power which is a much more challenging infrastructure.
Stream SD over DSL (Score:4, Interesting)
Single digit megabits per second is all you need for standard-definition video streaming, so long as the monthly cap isn't also oppressive. A decade and a half ago, the warez scene was using DivX (MPEG-4 Part 2 + MP3 in AVI) to transcode a 97-minute movie to fill one 700 MB CD at an average rate of 1 Mbps. Nowadays, WebM (VP9 + Opus in MKV) achieves comparable picture quality at an even lower rate.
On the other hand, you probably won't see acceptable streaming performance with 768 kbps DSL, or 1.5 Mbps DSL with multiple TVs.
Re: (Score:2)
And for all your high def needs there's torrents.
Re: (Score:2)
Single digit megabits per second is all you need for standard-definition video streaming
SD tv, which no one today would find acceptable on screens larger than 30".
You just went totally obtuse and ignored the very first fucking sentence they stated.
I took Gr8Apes's comment to mean "There is no longer significant demand for standard-definition video streaming. On the displays common in 2018, it's high definition or no sale."
Use QoS at 1.5 Mbps per device (Score:2)
On the other hand, you probably won't see acceptable streaming performance with [...] 1.5 Mbps DSL with multiple TVs.
good luck if someone in your home wants to do something else at the same time.
Exactly. But in a situation like this, you could try quality of service (QoS). When the connection is congested, set your router to give each device a 1.5 Mbps slice of the downstream. With current congestion control policies that U.S. cellular ISPs are implementing, such as T-Mobile's Binge On, streaming providers will recognize this and not try to send any HD video. If your router does not support QoS, replace its firmware with a third-party firmware that does, or purchase a router that supports third-par
Re: (Score:3)
If you're on a 2 Mbps connection, and it chokes loading commercials, report the fact that it chokes loading commercials to your video provider. If you did, what was the reply?
Provided Starlink doesn't get canceled like 405 (Score:3)
StarLink will mean they can get all the streaming they want.
Until SpaceX launches Starlink service, it's vapor. Another Elon Musk venture recently canceled a planned tunnel dig [slashdot.org] after discovering that the locals demanded a work-to-rule on the environmental impact assessment.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't think of another innovator who has managed to follow through on nearly as high percentage of their ideas as Musk has. Personally, I don't think that particular tunnel dig is "canceled" in Musk's mind. He just realized that he's not doing things in the best order and temporarily shelved it. It wasn't the best battle to fight today. He'll get back to it in the natural order of filling out the honeycomb of tunnels under LA years from now.
The analysts I've read reports from seem to be putting the probab
Director's Rules in Seattle (Score:2)
I thought the problem in Seattle was Director's Rules, where both the owner of the property adjacent to the node and 60 percent of other nearby property owners need to vote yes for any utility improvements, and not voting (such as an absentee landlord or a vacant property) was counted as a "no" vote. (Source: "What Happened to Seattle's Gigabit Network?" by Colin Wood [govtech.com])
Still need Internet to request cassette delivery (Score:2)
Subscribers to cassette rental would still need an information service in order to request cassettes from a distributor. (Source: DVD.Netflix.com) In addition, several types of live events would not be as appealing in a cassette model, such as sport matches, political announcements, and entertainment industry awards shows.
HTTPS is the next Gopher (Score:2)
This is why I wish low-bandwidth protocols came back for simple information sharing services. Gopher NEXT when?
Send HTML over HTTPS with no images or script, and you'll have a fairly close approximation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any public, free, satellite TV? It sound like it would be a fun hobby and hopefully PBS / NASA / public government feeds/research-feeds/etc is out there as content
If you are living in the US, English only speaker and not a Jesus freak there is absolutely nothing.