Why watching TV via the Internet is plain stupid

The original poster is unfortunately braindead and lives on a small island just off the coast. They have no understaning just how useful TV via Internet is when you are abroad. No need for an expensive sattelite dish, just a tablet PC and you can get all the UK TV programmes you need.

There is only so much cake to eat and some people want it all; so when ISPs start to charge for the amount of data you consume (as on the mobile networks) I don't think "catchup tv" will last long"

I don't normally comment on posts Ssscrudddy but yours made me both smile and nod at the same time. I remember my first modem bought around 1993, very slow and used mostly for BBS access at the time (remember them?) and dare I say it some pinched Oxford university Internet access. KA9Q, text based websites, Telnet IRC, Cello, Netchameleon. I used Demon back then and I still use them today for many reasons not least being contention ratio and an agreeable non-censorship policy. Personally, I have no TV and the Internet provides most of my entertainment in some form or other.

What a ridiculous gripe. It isnt people watching TV on their computers (or other devices) that is slowing your internet down, it is your ISP that is slowing it down.

E.g. their (ISP) equipment can supply 100 people with 10Mbps each (enough to watch 2 simultaneous copies of live streaming iplayer), a total of 1000 Mbps. But they have chosen to supply this to 2600 people (instead of 100), a contention ratio of 26:1. So if 1 person is on the internet in your area, you are only ever going to get 10Mbps because they wont let it go any higher to you, another 99 people start using the internet, still no difference to you, because it is still within capacity. Suddenly the other 2500 people get home from work/school & all go on the internet & bang massive slow down because the ISP signed up more people than what they can supply (Sky connect anyone?).

If you bought a ticket to the theatre, & then when you got there they didnt let you in because it was full up & thanks for the money, would it be the fault of the people already in the theatre, or the fault of the theatre for selling you a seat which they simply cant supply you with.

As for quality, ok slightly, streaming quality is going to be lower than what you are used to on your proper TV, thanks to the slow internet speeds we have here, but if you lived in Japan you could easily get streaming TV over the internet at better than blu-ray quality.
But if you are not streaming, & waiting for a file to download there is no reason why it has to be worse quality than your proper TV.

A point to note, PC monitors have always been, & still are, better quality (higher definition) than any TV you can find. Youre high def 37" TV is what... 720p? 1080p? So thats a screen res of 1920x1080, a pc monitor in the same category these days would be 2560x1440 or to put it in TV terms that would be 1440p. Hell I even had a PC monitor about 12 years ago that would go to that high a resolution, but the graphics card that would power it tho was dammned expensive.

As for sound quality, are you comparing a high-end surround-sound digital hi-fi amp with an onboard non-surround sound-card? My pc sound-card is connected to my digi amp via fibre-optic, I let the £800 amp & the speakers connected to it do all my sound, rather than having my computer sound-card connected to some crappy speakers do it. I can assure you there is no difference to the sound whatever I play whether I play it through my PC or a separate device connected to the amp, & if I'm watching TV on the TV I still have the sound running through my amp rather than the TV speakers. For the record my computer speakers are far superior to my TV speakers, yet my amp & attached speakers are far superior than my TV or computer speakers.

My PC, TV, stereo, VCR, CD (& later DVD) have all been connected to each other, with the ability to watch anything from anything on anything (& same for sound) since around 1996

Quote
The Internet was never built nor designed for delivering television broadcasts. Video gobbles up bandwidth, and it's very unfair to "normal" web users. Why should I struggle to bring up a web page because my teenage neighbours are hogging all the bandwidth
/Quote

You are correct, the internet wasnt designed for delivering TV broadcasts, nor was it designed for "normal" users to go browsing. But it has developed into that. So you seem to be saying that you should be allowed to do what you want to do, ie "normal" browsing, simply because your usage came along before the net's ability to deliver video, & the people who want to watch video should not be able to watch it, even though their money is as good as yours, apparently you should get your 10 Mbps that you are paying for, but they should not get their 10 Mbps that they are paying for because they are trying to download a .wmv or a .mp4 as oppose to a .zip or a .html...

I wonder how many of you had an internet connection before 1998? I had 1, there was naff all on the net to look at those days though, & I kept getting in trouble from work for browsing the virtually non-existant net, when I should have been using it to connect from home to the work mainframe!

The teenager next door isnt gobbling up your bandwidth, your ISP is failing to provide what you are paying them to provide. Go find a provider that sutis your needs, ie 1 that doesnt throttle your connection depending on what time of day it is, or whatever protocol you are trying to use. If you are happy with an ISP that fails to deliver then stick with them. It is the ISPs fault not the users fault, dont forget they are also putting up with the same crap as you are.

For those who say sites like BBC Iplayer & Youtube should be made to pay a levy... why? As an internet user myself, I am paying my ISP, Iplayer isnt randomly pushing stuff to my computer, I have to go look for it, I have to actively request that data to be sent to me by clicking on the link... & guess what, thats what I'm paying for... it's called internet access. The point is it is being paid for, it doesnt need paying for twice, just because the ISP wants to keep loading on more & more customers, taking more & more money, without upgrading their hardware. Ask yourself this, why are these ISPs providing internet access? It is because there is content out there for people to access, & those people are paying to access that content.

Finally, you reckon TV should only be watched on TV, as if that is the only possible way to do it & no other circumstances occur to prevent it from being watched that way.

How about the teenager, whose Mummy is watching Eastenders in the living room, & Daddy is watching Top Gear in his bedroom on the other Sky box... oops no more sky boxes, but the teenager has a laptop & they have a net connection, he wants to watch Embarrassing Bodies... in the privacy of his own room, cuz he might get to see a breast or 3!

How about my situation, I live in a grade 1 listed building, English Heritage wont let me put up a TV arial, & they wont let me have a satellite dish. So the only possible way for me to watch any TV is via an internet connection (or go to the pub where I have no control over what is on). With this in mind I found an ISP that wasnt going to throttle my internet connection at peak time, & wont throttle me because they dont like me using a P2P protocol, & doesnt have a usage cap. I get the speed I get, restricted only by the distance from the telephone exchange, other than that I have no restrictions. None of this "Unlimited" internet oh by the way here are the limits crap that most ISPs seem to do these days.

oops wall of text for a 3 year old article *rolleyes*

I understand where you're coming from. I often forget to record my programmes, or I can't because someone else is recording something. If that's the case, I download the episode and watch it without the internet-it doesn't need to buffer and doesn't slow down the internet for other people. I prefer watching TV shows week by week than watching them all at once on the internet-I agree with the comedian Mark Watson:
"I'm always getting calls asking if I want to upgrade my phone, so I can watch TV on my mobile. I've got a TV! That's like taking a p*ss in your tumble dryer!"

TV is redundant, quality of digitised programmes is appalling, I can't bear to look at them. Why limit yourself to being in a certain place at a certain time to watch a certain programme. If you do want to watch a programme far better to watch online when and where you choose, however, considering the amount of garbage on TV I can't remember when I last watched a programme. Apart from some 'Celebrity' I've never heard of explaining how they boil an egg, redecorate a room in 45 minutes or the ultimate mind numbing talking about themselves on a 'talk' show, (talk shows should be made illegal). There is however some very good TV, the shopping channels, those are great, the best comedy going. Watching the presenters trying to keep a straight face whilst also trying to persuade viewers to pay £100 for something that can be bought for £50 in the High Street or online is REAL entertainment, the ultimate is the TV exclusive deal, ie the product is such tat that no shops will stock it so we need to get rid of it on TV. I digress, the world is changing, wasting millions of watts of electricity keeping transmitters operating round the clock to broadcast the guff that passes for entertainment is ludicrous. Rather spend the money on providing a high speed internet service so we can watch what we want when we want.

Frankly, it doesn't matter a jot where you watch TV - on a proper television set or internet streaming. The programmes are all rubbish - well, most of them. Isn't that what counts?

It's a rhetorical argument. If TV streaming was removed tomorrow, it's pretty much guaranteed something else would move in to fill the gap bandwidth wise. When BT get around to laying fibre networks allowing huge increases in data transfer rates, likely as not that will get filled up.
You could possibly pose the same argument with Skype versus landlines. Or even mobile networks versus landlines. Were cellphone network carriers originally designed to do anything other than voice and basic text capabilities? A recent survey done by the 3 network said that nowadays 97% of their traffic is data.
Maybe you have put forward an answer, levy the TV companies (or whoever). But truth is that the world wide web is more versatile than the local tv/radio aerial...

Would everyone out there read this gripe and take in the facts.
The internet has only so much capacity and if everyone wants to watch the telly on their laptop the net is going to grind to a halt.

Why do people want to watch tv on a laptop?

As this gripe says the internet was never designed for the transmmision of tv broadcasts and the tv companies are getting another delivery system for free because as far as I know they make no financial contribution to the internet providers, although there has been talk of imposing a levy on the broadcasts, to be paid by the tv companies.

So who is paying for all the bandwith used by internet tv? we are, in slow downloads and access.
When everthing grinds to a halt it will be too late.

"Watching TV on the Internet - just stop it!"

Why? Is anyone stopping you watching TV? Has the TV output decreased because of internet television? No, to both those things. I personally like the convenience of iplayer but that doesn't mean I'm going to have a rant about people who watch TV....
What a dumb complaint - there's really much more worrying things to be concerned about in this world. Go away.

When you're abroad and get rubbish reception from your Sat dish 'cos it's raining, or the wind is blowing, or it's gone 10pm. Then you understand why internet tv, connected to your tv is such a fantastic idea!!!

I think I-Player is rather useful actually, because for those Sky+ viewers STILL without the luxury of Anytime, you have to pre-set the box to record it, so say a friend tells you about a Panorama episode that was on last night, you could'nt have known about it before, thus haven't recorded it, BAM, iplayer, plus, lots of consoles now allow you to watch I-Player on your TV, like the Wii i'm typing this on now!!

looks like an "I do it because I can" even with the WEEKLY GRIPE. Tryed to read a posted comment and DAMNED if I didn't an ADVERT. right over the first paragraph. I'm done. You can put all where the SUN don't shine.

Let me tell you a story that may cause a re-think on your part. I am in hospital and they provide free Wi-Fi to patients. I have a laptop and iPlayer Desktop installed. I download BBC programmes when Internet traffic is light and watch them whenever I want. I currently have around 15 programmes lined up, including the first 6 episodes of THE KILLING. The Desktop allows you 30 days (as opposed to 6 on normal iPlayer). If a doctor or nurse comes in I just hit the pause button. I do have a TV by my bed but the screen is smaller than my laptop! Thank you BBC. Apart from THE PROMISE, I am watching nothing on any other channel.

well Ive got my 42 inch flat screen attached to my PC - infact I dont even have an aerial - I stream or download everything I watch on TV. It much more convienient - you can watch what you want when you want.