Future of TV reception

MHL is a standard for an HDMI port on the back of TV that introduces several new features. But one in particular is it allowed ROKU to put all the features of it's box on a 1 ounce streaming stick, and control it with the TV remote. ROKU introduced this product in October 2012, and for the first time you can hang a TV on the wall with a single power cord and have a workable internet TV. The ROKU stick is currently selling for $70-$80 and TV's with this MHL port are now on sale for as low as $170.


ROKU stick plugged into MHL port.

The table is details of the Insignia line of televisions, which is house brand of Best Buy. They are reasonably priced TV's, but not the absolute cheapest.
Models with MHL enabled ports are indicated.

MHL	MSRP	Sale	Insignia™ -	Diag			Dynamic Contrast Ratio	Notes	(kWh/year)
	$149.99		NS-19ED200NA14	19"	LED	720p	3,500	DVD combo	36
	$189.99	$179.99	NS-24ED200NA14	24"	LED	720p	24,000	DVD combo	45
	$229.99		NS-28ED200NA14	28"	LED	720p	24,000	DVD combo	54
	$149.99	$129.99	NS-22E400NA14	22"	LED	1080p	9,000		45
	$119.99	$99.99	NS-19E310A13	19"	LED	720p	3,000		36
	$169.99	$139.99	NS-24E200NA14	24"	LED	720p	24,000		45
Yes	$199.99	$169.99	NS-28E200NA14	28"	LED	720p	30,000		54
Yes	$229.99		NS-32D200NA14	32"	LED	720p	40,000		54
	$229.99		NS-32D120A13	32"	LED	720p	100,000	13 lbs.	75
	$249.99		NS-32E321A13	32"	LED	720p	10,000	16.6 lbs.	65
Yes	$279.99	$249.99	NS-32E400NA14	32"	LED	1080p	25,000		72
	$299.99		NS-32E440A13	32"	LED	1080p	80,000	?? $$$	100
Yes	$349.99	$329.99	NS-39D400NA14	39"	LED	1080p	32,000		109
Yes	$379.99	$349.99	NS-39E400NA14	39"	LED	1080p	20,000		109
	$329.99		NS-39L400NA14	39"	LCD	1080p	7,000		190
	$329.99		NS-40D40SNA14	40"	LED	1080p	10,000		109
Yes	$499.99		NS-46D400NA14	46"	LED	1080p	160,000		145
Yes	$549.99		NS-46E440NA14	46"	LED	1080p	10,000	120Hz	145
Yes	$549.99		NS-50D400NA14	50"	LED	1080p	200,000		154
Yes	$699.99		NS-50E440NA14	50"	LED	1080p	50,000	120Hz	154
	$699.99	$399.99	NS-50L260A13	50"	LCD	1080p	10,000	120Hz	210
	$549.99	$479.99	NS-50L440NA14	50"	LCD	1080p	24,000	120Hz	281
Yes	$699.99	$599.99	NS-55D440NA14	55"	LED	1080p	200,000	120Hz	172
	$1,399.99	$1,199.99	NS-65D260A13	65"	LED	1080p	165,000	120Hz	390

I assume the single model with 1080p resolution that is only 22" is mostly aimed at computer monitors or gamers.

Even the 55" television at $600 with $80 Roku Streaming stick and $20/month for internet services will probably pay back in a year

In light of these developments, what do you envision as the future of your home connectivity?

I can't resist an old, stupid joke:

"Did you hear about the antennae wedding? The ceremony wasn't much, but the reception was fantastic!"

I'm reminded somewhat of the "cable-ready" TVs sold in the 80s and 90s. They were great, until the cable company started scrambling all the content.

BTW in Mexico online content is rather poor. We have Netflix, and some imitators, but that's local. Meaning a lot of content is dubbed into Spanish (and the day I care about local programming, I should be taken out and shot). Services like Hulu and Amazon are not available. You can hack or mask your IP address so it will seem to be in the US, but that's complicated, it costs extra, and of course works intermittently at best.

So for now I'm sticking with cable.

Quote: Nareed

BTW in Mexico online content is rather poor.

So for now I'm sticking with cable.

As I remember it was more difficult to get the higher internet speeds. Many people in USA now have 25 Mbps internet speeds.

This MHL port and Roku Streaming Stick is not a breakthrough product, it just cleans up the mess a little by requiring fewer power cords and remotes. But it makes it easier to hang your system on the wall.

It is not clear how much on line streaming is going to actually replace cable. It is true that many people could have dropped cable in favor of Netflix by Mail, but it didn't become a huge phenomena. For some time now you can get news and weather from the internet. Online streaming of sports is still fairly limited, with Sunday night football the biggest exception.

A lot of people from the USA are using streaming to work their way through British and Canadian TV shows and movies that were previously unavailable. Once the bulk of these shows are viewed, there may be a resurgence towards cable. Cable TV series are getting most of the critical acclaim, and is now starting to get some large viewership numbers.

Reruns on cable fuel increased interest in shows on broadcast. When The Big Bang Theory was being shown 8 times a day on cable, viewership for new shows started hitting record numbers.

In the same way online viewing of shows may spike interest in cable TV. The episodes up to summer of 2009 of Torchwood and the Dr. Who episodes up to Christmas 2011 are on Netflix, but that might spur a renewed interest in getting BBC America to see the 50th anniversary specials and the next series.

Quote: Pacomartin

As I remember it was more difficult to get the higher internet speeds.

It depends. I had spotty, noisy service, but then the phone company upgraded our area to fiber optics. Since then the web races like an F1 car. Alas, the slow, aging, decaying PC makes it seem like an F1 car in rush hour traffic when I run video.

But I get very good video on the tablet with WiFi at home. What I'd like is a Google Chromecast but 1) everyone seems to be sold out and 2) most retailers, including Amazon, won't even ship it to Mexico.

Netflix is great for TV series. It's a lot cheaper than buying the boxed set on DVD, too. But a 7" tablet isn't the best way to watch TV. If/When I get a new PC, I might just hook everything up to the TV and see how it goes. I wouldn't mind re-watching Sliders in order and without missing eps, for instance.

Quote: Nareed

What I'd like is a Google Chromecast but 1) everyone seems to be sold out and 2) most retailers, including Amazon, won't even ship it to Mexico.

I lived in Oaxaca City, so I presume internet is faster in Mexico City.

This article comparies Chromecast to Roku Streaming stick Personally, I think the Chromecast is not that big of a deal, but it got a lot of attention with the $35 price. It can't generate content, and requires a very expensive phone or tablet to operate it.

Now if you don't own a phone or a tablet, that could cost more than your TV. If you do own a phone or a tablet, then why would you want to tie it up watching TV? Basically a chromecast streaming stick works alone. The only problem is you need an MHL television. That's why I was pleased to see someone selling MHL enabled TV's for under $200.

Quote: Pacomartin

I lived in Oaxaca City, so I presume internet is faster in Mexico City.

As I said, it depends on the provider and even the part of the city.

Quote:

This article comparies Chromecast to Roku Streaming stick Personally, I think the Chromecast is not that big of a deal, but it got a lot of attention with the $35 price. It can't generate content, and requires a very expensive phone or tablet to operate it.

I've fallen behind tech advances in recent years. See, as my PC became slow and clumsy, I didn't pay much attention to developments until I was ready to get a new one. Then Windows 8 hit and you probably know the rest. TV wasn't a priority so long as there is stuff to watch on cable, but that's getting spotty sometimes. Like when the cable channel showing FOX started dubbing everything, or when the History channel stopped offering the English audio track. Given a choice between dubbed shows and nothing, I much prefer nothing (or rather something other than TV).

Netflix, for now, provides some interesting options. But thus far I can only watch it on the tablet.

Quote:

Now if you don't own a phone or a tablet, that could cost more than your TV. If you do own a phone or a tablet, then why would you want to tie it up watching TV?

Well, I don't use the tablet while watching TV, so that would be ok. If I want to read instead, or surf the web, or play Candy Crush, then I can do so and not watch TV.

I got a 7" tablet because I wanted a means to read e-books, plus a means for playing audiobooks and podcasts, plus mobile web browsing from time to time. For e-books, a 7" Nexus is great. I love buying books piecemeal and having them there in moments.

Quote: Nareed

Well, I don't use the tablet while watching TV, so that would be ok. If I want to read instead, or surf the web, or play Candy Crush, then I can do so and not watch TV. I got a 7" tablet because I wanted a means to read e-books, plus a means for playing audiobooks and podcasts, plus mobile web browsing from time to time. For e-books, a 7" Nexus is great. I love buying books piecemeal and having them there in moments.

When Roku released the Roku Streaming Stick in October 2012 it cost $100 and required an MHL television which was fairly rare and expensive at the time. Although it eliminated the requirement for a power cord and a remote, the cost and availability of the MHL televisions meant that few people were interested.

Obviously the GOOGLE Chromecast stick caused a media sensation with it's $35 price tag. But a 7" Nexus tablet costs about $200.

With the price of a new MHL television now below $200 for a 28" model, and the Roku streaming stick down to $70-$80 it may make sense to purchase a TV with MHL and a Roku stream stick if you are starting from scratch.

At 11 pounds with the requirement for a single power cord they are marginally more cumbersome to carry around the house than a 7" screen that needs to be recharged periodically. However, if you want to watch TV in different places in the house, it is much more pleasant than staring at a 7" screen.

Roku Ready Streaming Devices

Quote: Pacomartin

Obviously the GOOGLE Chromecast stick caused a media sensation with it's $35 price tag. But a 7" Nexus tablet costs about $200.

Yes. But, again, I already have one. Plus, all I've found so far I want to watch is Netflix. Chromecast works with Netflix, and it's only $35 ergo...

I don't much care about cables. I would with the tablet. I'm thinking I need a longer charging cable, for instance, so I'll be able to read while it's charging (really). But as far as the PC goes, I don't care if it has one cable or a dozen. I rarely move it from its place. Ditto the TV. I've moved it once, and that was to get it repaired (amazingly, they did successfully repair it; more amazingly, they only charged me $40 or so). Oh, and I only have one TV.

So, I've a perfectly good 32" LED TV, a tablet and a PC. I suppose I will get a new PC if I can stomach paying for Windows 8.1 (actually once it's overhauled into actual usability, it's not nearly as bad as it could be; I'm just angry at the band in Redmond). If I get one, I'll explore options for streaming from it to the TV. I found mine has a LAN port for some reason, and I think the Blueray does as well.

Quote: Nareed

Yes. But, again, I already have one.

This seems to be the universal argument. Most people already have a tablet and/or a phone and a TV with HDMI. They simply want to spend $35 so they don't have to climb behind the TV and run a cable. The fact that no one else can run the TV when they are not there is seemingly not a consideration as many people either live alone, or their TV is in their personal space.

It just seems that you should be able to run a TV without a $200 remote control.

Quote: Pacomartin

This seems to be the universal argument. Most people already have a tablet and/or a phone and a TV with HDMI. They simply want to spend $35 so they don't have to climb behind the TV and run a cable.

Not quite. I already have the tablet, which I will continue to ahve even if I buy a new TV and any number of internet-enabled devices. Next, as of now I only run Netflix for content, so paying $35 for streaming that to the TV seems reasonable. I'd pay that much even if it required cables.

Quote:

It just seems that you should be able to run a TV without a $200 remote control.

And that will do for a massively unfair mischaracterization until a better one comes along.

The idea behind Chromecast is that lots of people already own tablets, PCs and have wireless internet at home.