On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:46:12 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 20:39:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:
Remember when TV used advertising for their profit?

You would think some stations would want to be wifi ready and get the
signal from your router. If they ever built TVs to take a wifi signal
you would think ad companies would be more than willing to reach
consumer's eyes that way.

No idea what your point is, but smart TVs that have Wi-Fi and support streaming have been out for several years and last time I looked, most of the market seems to include that now.

I know you can get Youtube with a smart TV but you would think that
all cable channels would want their signal to go to TVs for free and
get their advertising to more eyes.

I guess the cable content providers figure that they get the same or more money by getting a combo of payment from the cable companies and advertisers.. And there is a lot of America where the cable bandwidth is there, but the internet bandwidth could probably not support all those cable customers streaming whatever they please.





Local channels should broadcast the same way Youtube does.

I guess that would be a good option for people who can't get OTA reception, but IDK what the real demand would be and OTA seems to be working for people who don't want cable.





I don't have a smart TV but I do have several WDTV players. Using
Youtube and the other channels are clumsy and most are not free.

Somebody has to pay for the content. And right now that's through your cable bill and ads. Or using your model, through streaming and paying Netflix, Amazon etc.