There is a channel called Channel Pear that allows you to stream live tv to ROKU, Fire TV, Chromecast, Plex, Kodi, Android, and iOS. You can choose 5 channels and use their service for free. Sometimes channels go offline but for the most part it is pretty reliable. I started with their free service and chose espn, tnt, tnt overtime, tbs and left an open channel to add things as I wanted to. Streams vary in quality but for the most part they are good. Their pay service allows you to add as many channels as you want. The paid service is $3.00 a month. You can also get a subscription for longer periods and your cost is discounted more. I am not sure if it is something that will be around long term so I decided to go with a monthly payment. It seems to be a community of users that add to the channel library. MSG is not available at this time.
https://channelpear.com/
Wow! Thank you. I have 2 TVs that only have Roku and basic tv. Will definitely add some cable channels now to my roku.
NYKBocker wrote:Wow! Thank you. I have 2 TVs that only have Roku and basic tv. Will definitely add some cable channels now to my roku.
Awesome. I have had fun with their service.
Is the channel just for live streamed tv, or does it offer on demand options?
markvmc wrote:Is the channel just for live streamed tv, or does it offer on demand options?
It is just live streams.
Gotta think that this isn't legal though and will be shut down soon?
Andrew wrote:Gotta think that this isn't legal though and will be shut down soon?
I think if you subscribe pay month to month. I believe I read that it was started in December 2014.
Their version of WGN doesn't have baseball games.
How do you see a list of all available channels?
JonsTintedTails wrote:How do you see a list of all available channels?
If you go to their website you should see a tool bar with media on it. If you select that it should show you available channels.
I don't know what will happen with the nba but tonight they have the nfl network as a channel for jets/bills. They also had several nfl games as channels last sunday that were not being broadcast where I live. They were flagged and gone shortly after the game. They also were in hd. The channels are created by people that use Channel Pear.
I'm genuinely curious as to how people expect broadcasters to keep broadcasting if the model is not to pay for anything directly, or to pay drastically reduced rates to third-party streamers?
What revenue model is supporting the continuation of programming we actually want?
Other people's money?
I guess there are two options. First, not enough people cut their cable service, so that the broadcasters' bottom line is not significantly affected. (I still pay for cable, for example, and that's in part because I can't stand to watch a basketball game in real time with all the breaks/ads).
Or, second, enough people cut their cable, so that the broadcasters have to make their service more attractive to paying customers, either by cutting price or by adding extras to attract buyers. Think of the music industry for ana analogical situation. Profits are down for the basic product (music) since the heyday of CDs, but enough people still pay for subscription services to make it profitable for the likes of Pandora, Spotify, etc... And some bands give you extras, such as box sets, or deluxe editions to get people to pay for albums that are freely available elsewhere.
People will find a way to make money from live sports regardless of how it's pumped into our homes.
markvmc wrote:I guess there are two options. First, not enough people cut their cable service, so that the broadcasters' bottom line is not significantly affected. (I still pay for cable, for example, and that's in part because I can't stand to watch a basketball game in real time with all the breaks/ads). Or, second, enough people cut their cable, so that the broadcasters have to make their service more attractive to paying customers, either by cutting price or by adding extras to attract buyers. Think of the music industry for ana analogical situation. Profits are down for the basic product (music) since the heyday of CDs, but enough people still pay for subscription services to make it profitable for the likes of Pandora, Spotify, etc... And some bands give you extras, such as box sets, or deluxe editions to get people to pay for albums that are freely available elsewhere.
People will find a way to make money from live sports regardless of how it's pumped into our homes.
I have no issues with "enough the people cut their cable" part.
The problem is the people who cut their cable, but still acquire the programming in non-authorized ways anyway, thereby in fact more than likely raising the rates for those who do pay.
Almost EVERY consumer product you buy, from a gallon of milk to a pair of jeans costs MORE because retailers bake in the cost theft has their button line into their retail prices.
I'm continually dumbfounded by the casual attitude towards and justification of theft of a consumer product just because you don't have to tuck it under your clothes and leave the store to acquire it.
But as fewer people buy the service (demand falls), standard economics dictates that the price will fall, or the company will fail. That's exactly what we've seen recently in the music industry, news business and book publishing. Why think sports broadcasting is different? Indeed, we're already seeing this with the adventure of sling TV and other such legal services, which offer streaming cable packages for $20-$45 a month.
markvmc wrote:But as fewer people buy the service (demand falls), standard economics dictates that the price will fall, or the company will fail. That's exactly what we've seen recently in the music industry, news business and book publishing. Why think sports broadcasting is different? Indeed, we're already seeing this with the adventure of sling TV and other such legal services, which offer streaming cable packages for $20-$45 a month.
Again, I have no problem with people no longer purchasing the service.
The problem is when people are acquire the services anyway through unauthorized means.
Knickoftime wrote:markvmc wrote:But as fewer people buy the service (demand falls), standard economics dictates that the price will fall, or the company will fail. That's exactly what we've seen recently in the music industry, news business and book publishing. Why think sports broadcasting is different? Indeed, we're already seeing this with the adventure of sling TV and other such legal services, which offer streaming cable packages for $20-$45 a month.
Again, I have no problem with people no longer purchasing the service.
The problem is when people are acquire the services anyway through unauthorized means.
In regards to the nba some of this is self created. If I could watch the Knicks on league pass I would purchase league pass. However, they are blacked out because of where I live. I am not going to lie and jump through hoops to get league pass international. If my cable has a game blacked out because the sabres are playing I am going to find another way to watch it.
Knickoftime wrote:markvmc wrote:But as fewer people buy the service (demand falls), standard economics dictates that the price will fall, or the company will fail. That's exactly what we've seen recently in the music industry, news business and book publishing. Why think sports broadcasting is different? Indeed, we're already seeing this with the adventure of sling TV and other such legal services, which offer streaming cable packages for $20-$45 a month.
Again, I have no problem with people no longer purchasing the service.
The problem is when people are acquire the services anyway through unauthorized means.
Yeah, got that. Responding to your point about how such people inflate the price for those who pay. The opposite is actually closer to the truth.
CrushAlot wrote:Knickoftime wrote:markvmc wrote:But as fewer people buy the service (demand falls), standard economics dictates that the price will fall, or the company will fail. That's exactly what we've seen recently in the music industry, news business and book publishing. Why think sports broadcasting is different? Indeed, we're already seeing this with the adventure of sling TV and other such legal services, which offer streaming cable packages for $20-$45 a month.
Again, I have no problem with people no longer purchasing the service.
The problem is when people are acquire the services anyway through unauthorized means.
In regards to the nba some of this is self created. If I could watch the Knicks on league pass I would purchase league pass. However, they are blacked out because of where I live. I am not going to lie and jump through hoops to get league pass international. If my cable has a game blacked out because the sabres are playing I am going to find another way to watch it.
I just don't get this.
The flaw/fallacy in this justification is confusing a desire with a right/need.
'I really, really want this, so I'm going to take it, no matter what'. As if the NBA has some responsibility or duty to provide you with something, and if they don't, then is their fault and you have to find a way to acquire it.
We can layer on all the minutiae about sports and fandom and loyalty and questionable business practices, but at the end of the day, it's justifying theft. It's saying "yeah, I know I'm stealing it, but *I* have a good reason, and it's not harming anyone'.
