webtv? I strive to grasp the concept, but am missing something. I know
that we all have limited ISP's, bandwidths, dialups, and all the other
things that are dictated mostly by where we live, and not by our computer
literacy.

Yet, I really do not understand webtv. Before I make a judgement on this, I
would like to hear some lucid descriptions of what it is, when it is used,
and what sort of people use it.

With the exception of ONE person in the last ten years, every webtv poster I
have read seemed to be a totally uninformed out of touch individual that one
would picture living at the end of a windy dirt road without running water
or indoor plumbing.

I know that at times, we all have to take the connection available, and want
to grok this. I understand that portion. I do not, however, grok that
99.9% of webtv posters impress me as having a shallow gene pool.

TIA

Steve

On Apr 19, 7:36*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
webtv? *I strive to grasp the concept, but am missing something. *I know
that we all have limited ISP's, bandwidths, dialups, and all the other
things that are dictated mostly by where we live, and not by our computer
literacy.

Yet, I really do not understand webtv. *Before I make a judgement on this, I
would like to hear some lucid descriptions of what it is, when it is used,
and what sort of people use it.

With the exception of ONE person in the last ten years, every webtv poster I
have read seemed to be a totally uninformed out of touch individual that one
would picture living at the end of a windy dirt road without running water
or indoor plumbing.

I know that at times, we all have to take the connection available, and want
to grok this. *I understand that portion. *I do not, however, grok that
99.9% of webtv posters impress me as having a shallow gene pool.

TIA

Steve

==
Perhaps the answer lies as close as a Google search.
==

"Steve B" wrote:
webtv? I strive to grasp the concept, but am missing something. I
know
that we all have limited ISP's, bandwidths, dialups, and all the other

things that are dictated mostly by where we live, and not by our
computer
literacy.

Yet, I really do not understand webtv. Before I make a judgement on
this, I
would like to hear some lucid descriptions of what it is, when it is
used,
and what sort of people use it.

With the exception of ONE person in the last ten years, every webtv
poster I
have read seemed to be a totally uninformed out of touch individual
that one
would picture living at the end of a windy dirt road without running
water
or indoor plumbing.

I know that at times, we all have to take the connection available,
and want
to grok this. I understand that portion. I do not, however, grok
that
99.9% of webtv posters impress me as having a shallow gene pool.

TIA

Steve




Not hard to understand. Simple interface, totally
Impervious to malware and virus attacks, great for couch potatoes who
watch a lot of TV since 1 key push flips TV screen into web browser and
back while retaining TV audio or not; great way to spend time during
commercials. Cheap and super dependable printer support with a few cheap
but decent printers from HP, others.

Also dirt cheap compared to computer purchase when sold 10-15 yrs ago
($129 versus thousands)

Good concept which could benefit a vast number of emailers / web users
today, particularly seniors,

Surprised another PROM-based Internet appliance has not surfaced. Needed
more now than ever given cyberthreats, aging population, etc.

Smarty

On Apr 19, 8:36*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
webtv? *I strive to grasp the concept, but am missing something. *I know
that we all have limited ISP's, bandwidths, dialups, and all the other
things that are dictated mostly by where we live, and not by our computer
literacy.

Yet, I really do not understand webtv. *Before I make a judgement on this, I
would like to hear some lucid descriptions of what it is, when it is used,
and what sort of people use it.

With the exception of ONE person in the last ten years, every webtv poster I
have read seemed to be a totally uninformed out of touch individual that one
would picture living at the end of a windy dirt road without running water
or indoor plumbing.

I know that at times, we all have to take the connection available, and want
to grok this. *I understand that portion. *I do not, however, grok that
99.9% of webtv posters impress me as having a shallow gene pool.

TIA

Steve

My gene pool is shallow I see, I had web tv. Web tv was and probably
is the cheapest way to go online , a cheap keyboard and box and maybe
15$ a month. It was for those without computers as years ago computers
cost alot more than they have in recent years. It was hardware
designed before Flash and other programs that need a quick and large
memory computer. Its limiting in what you can do and usualy slower
than a computer but for those that have no interest in computers it
works, but only somewhat now. It is obsolete in that it cant down load
most sites now considered large data requirements quickly . It can as
I saw years ago take 5 minutes or more to download to visit many large
vendors sites and not enable Flash. It had its day but never kept up
with its hardware to keep its use fast enough to be enjoyable, or you
had to pay for a new box. I dumped it when it became unbearably slow
and I didnt want to buy a new Web tv box. The only upside is watching
tv and doing some minor surfing, now new tvs have included this as a
feature. Web tv is dead, but MS is making money so they wont kill it
till it goes into the red I guess.

On Apr 19, 9:36*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
I understand that portion. *I do not, however, grok that
99.9% of webtv posters impress me as having a shallow gene pool.

That's because those are the people it was designed for and marketed
to.

There's quite a bit of interesting reading about webtv and its effect
on usenet and the internet in general out there.

Smarty has it right. I can sit on the couch with a cat on my lap, the
keyboard (infrared remote) next to me and use my TV as a monitor. I
don't have to wear my reading glasses. Using dialup, I can usually get
on line in a little over one minute and go right to my email list. I
don't have to worry about a virus or any other infiltrations. I can
send and receive photos and even spellcheck. I have a computer (Dell
desktop with Windows Vista) but find it slow and difficult so I never
use it.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

(---MIKE---) wrote:

Smarty has it right. I can sit on the couch with a cat on my lap, the
keyboard (infrared remote) next to me and use my TV as a monitor. I
don't have to wear my reading glasses.

I've got a dog on my lap right now, but I do have to wear my reading
glasses. My laptop is usually active when I'm watching TV.

Using dialup, I can usually get
on line in a little over one minute and go right to my email list.

Damn kids made me get Roadrunner years ago. I was never impatient
before- but waiting a minute for Internet access would kill me now.g

I
don't have to worry about a virus or any other infiltrations.

Sure you do. not as frequent as a Wondoze box-- but they are out
there & you should make yourself aware of them.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=webtv+virus

I can
send and receive photos and even spellcheck. I have a computer (Dell
desktop with Windows Vista) but find it slow and difficult so I never
use it.

Check out the netbooks. I got an Acer Aspire for my wife last year &
she loves it.

Jim

On Apr 20, 11:22*am, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:27:25 -0700 (PDT), ransley



wrote:
On Apr 19, 8:36*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
webtv? *I strive to grasp the concept, but am missing something. *I know
that we all have limited ISP's, bandwidths, dialups, and all the other
things that are dictated mostly by where we live, and not by our computer
literacy.

Yet, I really do not understand webtv. *Before I make a judgement on this, I
would like to hear some lucid descriptions of what it is, when it is used,
and what sort of people use it.

With the exception of ONE person in the last ten years, every webtv poster I
have read seemed to be a totally uninformed out of touch individual that one
would picture living at the end of a windy dirt road without running water
or indoor plumbing.

I know that at times, we all have to take the connection available, and want
to grok this. *I understand that portion. *I do not, however, grok that
99.9% of webtv posters impress me as having a shallow gene pool.

TIA

Steve

My gene pool is shallow I see, I had web tv. Web tv was and probably
is the cheapest way to go online , a cheap keyboard and box and maybe
15$ a month. It was for those without computers as years ago computers
cost alot more than they have in recent years. It was hardware
designed before Flash and other programs that need a quick and large
memory computer. Its limiting in what you can do and usualy slower
than a computer but for those that have no interest in computers it
works, but only somewhat now. It is obsolete in that it cant down load
most sites now considered large data requirements quickly . It can as
I saw years ago take 5 minutes or more to download to visit many large
vendors sites and not enable Flash. It had its day but never kept up
with its hardware to keep its use fast enough to be enjoyable, or you
had to pay for a new box. I dumped it when it became unbearably slow
and I didnt want to buy a new Web tv box. The only upside is watching
tv and doing some minor surfing, now new tvs have included this as a
feature. Web tv is dead, but MS is making money so they wont kill it
till it goes into the red I guess.

These days there is no hardware reason why WebTV could not be built
into the cable company set top box and go as fast as any cable modem
PC. *There is also no reason why it couldn't stream any kind of
audio/video. I really think TV is heading that way anyhow and getting
away from the "broadcast" model into an on demand model.
I use my computer for other things so WebTV was never attractive to me
but I do see where it is good for people who only use the PC as an
internet engine.
The advent of HD digital TVs has blurred the difference between TVs
and monitors anyway. The biggest problem I saw with the WebTV concept
was the lousy resolution in old NTSC TVs. I do have a PC connected to
my big screen, just for streaming and playing internet content.


Of course there are reasons why an updated and faster WebTV can not
be built into the cable companies set top box... That box is already
full
of all sorts of stuff for the cable company and uses a special
operating
system dedicated to accessing media content from the cable companies
special servers which are not a part of the internet...

WebTV was designed for a niche market of people that wanted to be able
to connect to others over the internet in a very basic and fundamental
way
but didn't want to invest in a real computer... Think of them as an
in-home
internet kiosk...

~~ Evan

On Apr 20, 1:54*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Evan



wrote:
These days there is no hardware reason why WebTV could not be built
into the cable company set top box and go as fast as any cable modem
PC. There is also no reason why it couldn't stream any kind of
audio/video. I really think TV is heading that way anyhow and getting
away from the "broadcast" model into an on demand model.
I use my computer for other things so WebTV was never attractive to me
but I do see where it is good for people who only use the PC as an
internet engine.
The advent of HD digital TVs has blurred the difference between TVs
and monitors anyway. The biggest problem I saw with the WebTV concept
was the lousy resolution in old NTSC TVs. I do have a PC connected to
my big screen, just for streaming and playing internet content.

Of course there are reasons why an updated and faster WebTV can not
be built into the cable companies set top box... *That box is already
full
of all sorts of stuff for the cable company and uses a special
operating
system dedicated to accessing media content from the cable companies
special servers which are not a part of the internet...

It is still a computer and there is no hardware reason why it couldn't
include a browser. The box I have here from Comcast is mostly empty. A
few more chips will fit in there easily.
It is just a matter of time before the cable companies migrate to an
internet distribution model or get left behind because someone else
beats them to it..

WebTV was designed for a niche market of people that wanted to be able
to connect to others over the internet in a very basic and fundamental
way
but didn't want to invest in a real computer... *Think of them as an
in-home
internet kiosk...

Those people are still out there and they probably have a cable box.


Umm... Yes there is a reason... Cable companies will never go to an
internet based distribution... They keep it on a separate system so
that there is no widespread motivation for trying to hack the
system...

A cable company doesn't need to go to an internet based anything,
they provide their own network and they maintain its security on the
media content distribution channels by purposely not using standard
windows based systems and software...

By your logic the phone company should do the same thing with its
billing equipment and software -- no one would be motivated to try
and crack that system to be able to obtain free services if it were
all based on the "internet distribution model" and became vulnerable
to being attacked by outsiders...

If you don't know how it works or what software it is even running
you have no ability to try and attack the cable companies or phone
companies networks...

~~ Evan

On Apr 21, 1:21*am, Evan wrote:
On Apr 20, 1:54*pm, wrote:





On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Evan

wrote:
These days there is no hardware reason why WebTV could not be built
into the cable company set top box and go as fast as any cable modem
PC. There is also no reason why it couldn't stream any kind of
audio/video. I really think TV is heading that way anyhow and getting
away from the "broadcast" model into an on demand model.
I use my computer for other things so WebTV was never attractive to me
but I do see where it is good for people who only use the PC as an
internet engine.
The advent of HD digital TVs has blurred the difference between TVs
and monitors anyway. The biggest problem I saw with the WebTV concept
was the lousy resolution in old NTSC TVs. I do have a PC connected to
my big screen, just for streaming and playing internet content.

Of course there are reasons why an updated and faster WebTV can not
be built into the cable companies set top box... *That box is already
full
of all sorts of stuff for the cable company and uses a special
operating
system dedicated to accessing media content from the cable companies
special servers which are not a part of the internet...

It is still a computer and there is no hardware reason why it couldn't
include a browser. The box I have here from Comcast is mostly empty. A
few more chips will fit in there easily.
It is just a matter of time before the cable companies migrate to an
internet distribution model or get left behind because someone else
beats them to it..

WebTV was designed for a niche market of people that wanted to be able
to connect to others over the internet in a very basic and fundamental
way
but didn't want to invest in a real computer... *Think of them as an
in-home
internet kiosk...

Those people are still out there and they probably have a cable box.

Umm... *Yes there is a reason... *Cable companies will never go to an
internet based distribution... *They keep it on a separate system so
that there is no widespread motivation for trying to hack the
system...

A cable company doesn't need to go to an internet based anything,
they provide their own network and they maintain its security on the
media content distribution channels by purposely not using standard
windows based systems and software...

By your logic the phone company should do the same thing with its
billing equipment and software -- no one would be motivated to try
and crack that system to be able to obtain free services if it were
all based on the "internet distribution model" and became vulnerable
to being attacked by outsiders...

If you don't know how it works or what software it is even running
you have no ability to try and attack the cable companies or phone
companies networks...

~~ Evan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have cable TV, approx 80 channels, most of them useless, but they
do include most North American news networks, BBC World News and
especially the PBS, History and Discovery channels.

However there are deficiencies in world coverage; so, when needing
better information, especially about a situation in another part of
the world we use Live-station, which provides alternatives, which
include France TV, Russia TV, China TV, Al Jazeera (Out of Qatar), ITN
(From UK), UN TV, etc etc. all in English, which is my prime
language.

Haven't yet found any Australian/New Zealand or S.American stations/
channels to add, but will probably do so in time. Despite the speed of
my internet link it quite watchable. And one can flip back to the
internet any time, while leaving the sound on the TV feed. Without any
subscription it is also possible to have two stations on screen at one
time. Watching another countries TV is rather like picking up a
newspaper in another country; one quickly gets an idea what is of
concern and current interest to that country!

A recent example was the huge mine disaster in China, involving over
200 miners underground most of whom were rescued by 1000 working above
ground. Where some were rescued after 'eight days'! This was the same
time as the West VA gas explosion that killed some 33? And which got
frequent half hour coverage, while the much larger and longer Chinese
one got very little North American coverage!

Some of the reporting has an element of propaganda of course; Burma TV
for example, but one can allow for that, as anyone who has had to cope
with Glen Beck or Lou Dobbs one sided rants can! And Fox News; some of
the little Fox coverage seen has been infantile and amateurish! Seems
to be pandering to only one point of view (preaching to the already
converted and unthinking, maybe?).

So try Livestation? For news coverage anyway.

On Apr 20, 2:36�am, "Steve B" wrote:
webtv? �I strive to grasp the concept, but am missing something. �I know
that we all have limited ISP's, bandwidths, dialups, and all the other
things that are dictated mostly by where we live, and not by our computer
literacy.

Yet, I really do not understand webtv. �Before I make a judgement on this, I
would like to hear some lucid descriptions of what it is, when it is used,
and what sort of people use it.

With the exception of ONE person in the last ten years, every webtv poster I
have read seemed to be a totally uninformed out of touch individual that one
would picture living at the end of a windy dirt road without running water
or indoor plumbing.

I know that at times, we all have to take the connection available, and want
to grok this. �I understand that portion. �I do not, however, grok that
99.9% of webtv posters impress me as having a shallow gene pool.

TIA

Steve

Way to go might be satellite TV. I have satellite TV, there's both
free and pay channels, some in HD. It's quite cheap to install and
has non of the bandwidth problems of web TV, ie waiting to buffer etc.
There's lots of English language news programmes from UK, USA, ME,
Russia, EU, Japan, France etc.
Excellent picture/sound quality but 90% crap content. Of course.

On 2010-04-21, wrote:

middle man that empire will go the way of the video rental club.

What way is that?

I jes joined Netflix. With cable/satellite costing $100+ to get any
decent movie/program content, $23 for 4 DVDs and free video streaming
is almost a steal. Plus, I get the best of (?) made-for cable and
network programing (Bones, Family Guy, etc). I can watch it at any
wifi hotspot. The only down side --for me, anyway-- is you have to
have M$ Windows or a Mac. I left my eee netbook set up for XP.

nb -linux user

webtv? I strive to grasp the concept, but am missing something. I know
that we all have limited ISP's, bandwidths, dialups, and all the other
things that are dictated mostly by where we live, and not by our
computer literacy.
Yet, I really do not understand webtv. Before I make a judgement on
this, I would like to hear some lucid descriptions of what it is, when
it is used, and what sort of people use it.
With the exception of ONE person in the last ten years, every webtv
poster I have read seemed to be a totally uninformed out of touch
individual that one would picture living at the end of a windy dirt road
without running water or indoor plumbing.
I know that at times, we all have to take the connection available, and
want to grok this. I understand that portion. I do not, however, grok
that 99.9% of webtv posters impress me as having a shallow gene pool.
TIA
Steve


Steve B has to be the most stupid man on earth if He really means He can
not comprehend WEBTV.

He will not see this since He has me blocked but all of this is because
of some yellow or orange text. LOL

On Apr 21, 2:16*am, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Evan

wrote:
Umm... *Yes there is a reason... *Cable companies will never go to an
internet based distribution...

They will be relegated to selling nothing but bandwidth. Internet
distribution of content is only going to get bigger and the cable
companies are already under attack by internet content providers. When
the producers figure out they make more money by marketing their
content directly to the subscriber and avoiding the cable company
middle man that empire will go the way of the video rental club.


LOL... Not in the US, and not unless Congress acts to restore
net neutrality... Your ISP could make you pay extra to have
good speed on your connection to web based businesses like
Netflix and other media content carriers that have no networks
of their own and use the systems of other businesses without
any sort of financial consideration to the companies that
maintain the infrastructure...

You should see some changes coming soon unless Congress
acts, your ISP could be deciding what you can access over
the internet, not you...

~~ Evan

On Apr 21, 1:23*pm, wrote:


That will just be the last nail in the cable company's coffin. The
actual fiber is a common carrier and just like the phone company, the
cable company will be forced to lease their bandwidth to a 3d party if
they can't provide the service the customer wants.
We are really just talking about the last mile anyway.

Actually once people figure out what net neutrality really means I
imagine the law will come around. Once typical home port bandwidths
get up into tens of megs, choking that down to T1 speed won't affect
streaming anyway. I have a 1.5m DSL that does just fine streaming TV.
I can even do some low bandwidth browsing at the same time like these
newsgroups. I only see a problem if I am watching a TV stream and
trying to stream another video feed at the same time. Then it is just
a little stutter in the TV sometimes.


LOL... Then the world shouldn't worry because of what you have
right now... Those websites which allow you to stream TV won't
be around for very long unless they are using your ISP or paying
money to every ISP out there to guarantee that they can deliver
their media content to everyone out there... ISPs can as of right now
(actually like a couple of weeks ago) choose to restrict any traffic
they want that isn't a paying customer of their network... Sure
you are a customer, but you are trying to access commercial
media content you are paying to access from a 3rd party who
isn't paying your ISP to be able to use that ISP's network to
deliver their bandwidth intense content to you for a profit...

That is what Net Neutrality is all about... ISPs were formerly not
allowed to restrict traffic flowing through their network unless it
was
found to be malicious...

As far as "cable company will be forced to lease their bandwidth
to a 3d party if they can't provide the service the customer wants"
is total bullcrap because most markets have more than one cable
provider competing within it... It is not like the phone company
leasing wires to the various multitude of no-tel mini-comms and
3rd party ISPs leasing copper pairs to a specific customer's
premises... Each pair of copper wires in the phone network has
a unique origin point outside of the central office... A cable system
does not... All of the signals sent out on the system go to all
points of the system -- the level of service is determined by what
features are unlocked inside your set top converter box by the
cable company provider...

You can not compare the two systems and say that eventually
the cable companies will be required to lease space on their
systems to 3rd parties because there is no capacity within such
systems to isolate the different carriers from each other like you
can with copper pairs at the phone company...

It is quite clear you have no idea the differences between a
phone companies cable plant and that of a cable company...

It is not "just talking about the last mile anyway" as that last mile
of cable plant without any connection upstream is USELESS...
The 3rd party pays a lot of money to be able to access upstream
connections from the phone company to make its connections...
They can resell the services to you cheaper because they are
able to purchase the services in bulk, for thousands of lines at
a time and can get a better price than single line consumers...

Please get a clue...

~~ Evan