# Bad news for Tivo and Chromecast owners?



## siratfus (Oct 3, 2008)

We can forget Amazon Prime support.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/17/amazon-streaming-gaming-dongle/#comments


----------



## spaldingclan (Aug 22, 2012)

Prime is on lots of different hardware


----------



## siratfus (Oct 3, 2008)

Yes, but since I'm a tivo and a chromecast owner, I'd like it on those hardware.  With this dongle, I doubt they will ever support it. It probably wants to go head to head with Chromecast.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I can see that argument applying to the Chromecast, but I don't consider a Roamio in the same boat.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Get a Roku.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

According to Dave Zatz TiVo is beta testing a new Amazon app right now. No word on if it supports Prime or not, but I can't imagine they'd write a new app that doesn't support Prime.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Get a Roku.


 Second that.


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

I recently got a Chromecast from a friend to borrow & I wasn't that impressed with it. It had limited direct apps that supported it. The only ones I was interested in are Netflix and HBOGO. Even then, you HAD to have some sort of smartphone and/or tablet to control it. No way of using a standard remote (there goes trying to use my Harmony remote with it)

Yea, I also realize it can mirror the chrome browser from a networked PC, but I personally don't want to sit in bed and/or on the living room couch with a laptop and control its content. That or start content from a desktop PC and then go in to watch it. I want something simple and user friendly with direct control capabilities. 

Now, I also say this cause I already have numerous streaming devices (smart TVs, Blue Ray players, WDTV, TiVos, etc.) that not only work just as good, but some get Amazon Prime too. I guess if this was your first "smart" device purchase, it could be an attractive offer at only $35, but if you already have other devices, there is really no need for this. I would actually get a Roku box over a Chromecast. Roku is coming out with a new wireless type dongle anyway ($49) so that seems like the better choice in my opinion. And not having Amazon Prime on either of these devices is no huge loss either.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

buscuitboy said:


> I recently got a Chromecast from a friend to borrow & I wasn't that impressed with it. It had limited direct apps that supported it. The only ones I was interested in are Netflix and HBOGO. Even then, you HAD to have some sort of smartphone and/or tablet to control it. No way of using a standard remote (there goes trying to use my Harmony remote with it)


The app support is pretty impressive for such a young platform. And the fact that you HAVE to have a smartphone is literally the point. Controlling it with a remote would... well, this is like you're complaining that you can't navigate your desktop PC with a wrench.



> Yea, I also realize it can mirror the chrome browser from a networked PC, but I personally don't want to sit in bed and/or on the living room couch with a laptop and control its content. That or start content from a desktop PC and then go in to watch it. I want something simple and user friendly with direct control capabilities.


So, you want a Roku. You should go get one! They are awesome.



> Now, I also say this cause I already have numerous streaming devices (smart TVs, Blue Ray players, WDTV, TiVos, etc.) that not only work just as good, but some get Amazon Prime too. I guess if this was your first "smart" device purchase, it could be an attractive offer at only $35, but if you already have other devices, there is really no need for this. I would actually get a Roku box over a Chromecast. Roku is coming out with a new wireless type dongle anyway ($49) so that seems like the better choice in my opinion. And not having Amazon Prime on either of these devices is no huge loss either.


The Chromecast is by far and a way the most streamlined and efficient streaming device on the market. It's not even a competition. Wanting to use a remote is so out dated... I hate using a remote.

Saying "I would get a roku over a chromecast" is like saying "I would get a car instead of a motorcycle." I mean, sure, they do some of the same things, but like, those two things are not actually replacement devices for most people. They appeal to completely different people.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> The Chromecast is by far and a way the most streamlined and efficient streaming device on the market. It's not even a competition. Wanting to use a remote is so out dated... I hate using a remote.
> 
> Saying "I would get a roku over a chromecast" is like saying "I would get a car instead of a motorcycle." I mean, sure, they do some of the same things, but like, those two things are not actually replacement devices for most people. They appeal to completely different people.


I have both a Chromecast and Roku. I like and use both of them. But if I could only have one, I would choose the Roku without question. The Roku allows you to view most of the same content a Chromecast allows you to, plus a whole lot more that it won't. Now, maybe in a few years this will change, as the Chromecast adds more compatible apps. But for now, the Roku is the way to go if you can only have one. I've also had much less technical trouble with the Roku than I have with the Chromecast. The Roku is just much more stable and user friendly.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I have both a Chromecast and Roku. I like and use both of them. But if I could only have one, I would choose the Roku without question. The Roku allows you to view most of the same content a Chromecast allows you to, plus a whole lot more that it won't. Now, maybe in a few years this will change, as the Chromecast adds more compatible apps. But for now, the Roku is the way to go if you can only have one. I've also had much less technical trouble with the Roku than I have with the Chromecast. The Roku is just much more stable and user friendly.


The Roku is amazing. Yes, if you could only have ONE streaming device, it would absolutely be a Roku. Because it just does SO MUCH.

But see, the thing is, I have an Xbox One, TiVo's, TiVo Mini's, a PS3, etc etc etc.

So the fact that the Chromecast does one thing, but does it REALLY REALLY well, is not a problem. Because that's the ONE THING I want it to do. And the other boxes do all of the other stuff. The Chromecast launches Google Play movies, HBOGO and Netflix TV shows the absolute fastest and easiest. Period. Which is what I want it to do!

I am wildly confused about "technical trouble" with the Chromecast. Can you tell me more? Because it's EASILY the single most trouble free electronic device I've ever owned. It just works, all of the time, with no hassle.

I also plan to get a Chromecast to hook up to my receiver once I get an HDMI receiver in the new house... so I can use it to stream music.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> I am wildly confused about "technical trouble" with the Chromecast. Can you tell me more? Because it's EASILY the single most trouble free electronic device I've ever owned. It just works, all of the time, with no hassle.


For me, it was not an easy setup. The Chromecast would not work with my router's default settings. I had to do a lot of searching on the internet before I figured out what the problem was and how to change my router's firewall settings to allow the Chromecast to work with it.

Also, lately the Chromecast extension on my laptop's Chrome browser keeps crashing and I have yet to determine why.

Additionally, while the websites that have integrated apps (YouTube, Netflix, HBOGO) work pretty well, the "cast-a-tab" feature does not. Lots of lag, jitter, audio out of sync with video, etc. Eventually the Chromecast should get more dedicated apps, but until then its usefulness is somewhat limited.

So, for me at least, the Chromecast is a neat idea but not quite ready for prime time, whereas the Roku works like a champ. My only complaint about the Roku is that Comcast won't allow me to use the HBOGO and ShowtimeAnytime Roku apps. Damn you Comcast! *shakes fist in air vigorously*


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

The only reason I like my Chromecast better than my Roku is that it's the only device I use that will allow me to use HBOGo since I am stuck in Comcast hell.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

aadam101 said:


> The only reason I like my Chromecast better than my Roku is that it's the only device I use that will allow me to use HBOGo since I am stuck in Comcast hell.


Yes, that is primarily why I bought a Chromecast in the first place. I really hope someone brings this issue up in the Comcast/Time Warner merger hearings. It should be illegal for Comcast to be able to do this, and if we had legislators and regulators in Washington worth a damn it would be.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Yes, that is primarily why I bought a Chromecast in the first place. I really hope someone brings this issue up in the Comcast/Time Warner merger hearings. It should be illegal for Comcast to be able to do this, and if we had legislators and regulators in Washington worth a damn it would be.


You do realise that you voted for a Senator who represent you. Submit your questions/concerns to your Senator who should forward them to the hearings.


----------



## macjeepster (Sep 2, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Get a Roku.


I agree. I have 2 TiVos, Apple TV, Chromecast and Roku.
Roku does lots of things the TiVo doesn't do or doesn't do well: HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, Amazon Prime and even some Time-Warner cable on-demand.
Roku's a great accompaniment to TiVo.
You can buy the Roku 3 for $60 to $70 as a refurb.


----------



## StevesWeb (Dec 26, 2008)

macjeepster said:


> I agree. I have 2 TiVos, Apple TV, Chromecast and Roku.
> Roku does lots of things the TiVo doesn't do or doesn't do well: HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, Amazon Prime and even some Time-Warner cable on-demand.
> Roku's a great accompaniment to TiVo.
> You can buy the Roku 3 for $60 to $70 as a refurb.


I also have all the same gadgets and agree about how great Roku is, but I prefer the MLB.tv client on Apple TV.

On our Roku we even have a webcam app to watch IP cameras on our LAN.


----------



## spaldingclan (Aug 22, 2012)

the MLB app on the Tivo is pretty good too...does the job just fine on the Roamio


----------



## rondotcom (Feb 13, 2005)

Johncv said:


> You do realise that you voted for a Senator who represent you. Submit your questions/concerns to your Senator who should forward them to the hearings.


Yeah. Right. Good luck with that. I am not wealthy enough or any of my elected reps to even acknowledge my existence.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Johncv said:


> You do realise that you voted for a Senator who represent you. Submit your questions/concerns to your Senator who should forward them to the hearings.


My Senators won't do jack about it. One is a Republican and the other one might as well be. My best bet would be to send an email to Senator Al Franken, whom I have heard has already spoken out against the merger.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Get a Roku.


This. I have Roku, TiVo, AppleTV, and an HTPC, among others. Now this is making me want a Chromecast .


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Chromecast just got Vudu support if you have an android device. If you aren't using the free Prime streaming from Amazon and just use it to rent movies, then Vudu is a good option.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Amazon's money is in the content, not the device. They are playing the opposite game that Apple is playing. They are making their own box, but it's in their interest to have their content on as many boxes as possible. That's why there is a Kindle app for every platform even though they sell hardware Kindles of every stripe.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> For me, it was not an easy setup. The Chromecast would not work with my router's default settings. I had to do a lot of searching on the internet before I figured out what the problem was and how to change my router's firewall settings to allow the Chromecast to work with it.


If your firewall is setup in such a way that the Chromecast cannot stream, then your firewall is broken. It's a non-functional firewall. A firewall should only block EXTERNAL connections from initiating data transfers INTO your network. It should not block internal devices from initiating streams externally.

I am guessing you are not communicating something correctly here because what you're saying doesn't make much sense unless your router/firewall is configured badly or is REALLY old.



> Also, lately the Chromecast extension on my laptop's Chrome browser keeps crashing and I have yet to determine why.


*shrug*

Beta code. I hope you didn't buy it for beta code?



> Additionally, while the websites that have integrated apps (YouTube, Netflix, HBOGO) work pretty well, the "cast-a-tab" feature does not. Lots of lag, jitter, audio out of sync with video, etc. Eventually the Chromecast should get more dedicated apps, but until then its usefulness is somewhat limited.


It's a very limited device to the apps it has. Yep. But the apps it has work PERFECTLY and fast and better than anything else on the market, hands down.

the browser casting should not be considered a full fledged feature. It's a "hey, maybe this works sometimes?" feature. It's not supposed to be anything more than that.



> So, for me at least, the Chromecast is a neat idea but not quite ready for prime time, whereas the Roku works like a champ. My only complaint about the Roku is that Comcast won't allow me to use the HBOGO and ShowtimeAnytime Roku apps. Damn you Comcast! *shakes fist in air vigorously*


The roku is brutally slow, compared to the chromecast. That's the tradeoff... it's remote controlled, does a lot, but is slow as molasses to get to content. Love the roku's flexibility, but frustrated by the interface.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Yes, that is primarily why I bought a Chromecast in the first place. I really hope someone brings this issue up in the Comcast/Time Warner merger hearings. It should be illegal for Comcast to be able to do this, and if we had legislators and regulators in Washington worth a damn it would be.


What is the deal there? Is Comecast just not on-board with HBOGO? I think the way it works is, they have to pay-in to the HBOGO service, like it's a channel, right? It's not something they turn off. They have to buy it from HBO, right?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> What is the deal there? Is Comecast just not on-board with HBOGO? I think the way it works is, they have to pay-in to the HBOGO service, like it's a channel, right? It's not something they turn off. They have to buy it from HBO, right?


The deal is that Comcast is just being a dick. HBOGO is included with an HBO subscription, HBO just needs user authentication information provided by the cable company to allow access. Comcast allows their HBO subscribers to use the HBOGO app on the iPad, iPhone, Apple TV, XBOX, Android devices, Kindle Fire, and Samsung Smart TVs. So HBO clearly has access to Commcast's subscriber authentication information, because they use it to grant access on all those other devices. Literally all Comcast has to do is call up HBO and say "okay, go ahead and allow the Roku app to work for Comcast subscribers". Comcast just refuses to give their permission for the Roku app. All the other cable companies allow the use of the Roku app, just not Comcast. My guess is that Roku won't cough up the money that Comcast wants out of them to give their permission for it to be used.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> If your firewall is setup in such a way that the Chromecast cannot stream, then your firewall is broken. It's a non-functional firewall. A firewall should only block EXTERNAL connections from initiating data transfers INTO your network. It should not block internal devices from initiating streams externally.
> 
> I am guessing you are not communicating something correctly here because what you're saying doesn't make much sense unless your router/firewall is configured badly or is REALLY old.


It is a known issue that some routers' default settings do not allow the Chromecast to work. That is why Google maintains a router compatibility list of routers that are known to work with Chromecast by default:

https://support.google.com/chromecast/table/3477832?hl=en

Notice that some routers on the list do not support Chromecast by default and you have to change certain advanced settings to get it to work.



Grakthis said:


> The roku is brutally slow, compared to the chromecast. That's the tradeoff... it's remote controlled, does a lot, but is slow as molasses to get to content. Love the roku's flexibility, but frustrated by the interface.


I have not found this to be true. I have the Roku 3 and it is very fast and responsive. As for the remote, I don't have a smartphone, so what else besides a remote would I be using?


----------



## Hercules67 (Dec 8, 2007)

I read the posts here and I am completely confused by the problems users seem to be having, although, truthfully, I do not subscribe to HBO and have not tried casting HBOtoGO yet (but Intend to eventually), I own a Chromecast, and have ZERO issues with it.

I have used it with Pandora.
I have used it with YouTube.
I have used it with Plex Media Server.

Everything I cast to ii, I have streamed without problem, and my PC and Router are ages old (as in 10 years old), which by internet standards, are like Paleolithic.

So, how come people are having issues?

How can I help people use my set-up to fix theirs?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The biggest thing that makes me leery of Chromecast is not only that you can't hardwire it like Roku or AppleTV, but that it doesn't have 5ghz wireless. Everything else I have is hardwired, so I don't have to worry about the wifi getting messed up while streaming. I'll still probably get one eventually, since I love gadgets, and it's hard to resist $35.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The deal is that Comcast is just being a dick. HBOGO is included with an HBO subscription, HBO just needs user authentication information provided by the cable company to allow access. Comcast allows their HBO subscribers to use the HBOGO app on the iPad, iPhone, Apple TV, XBOX, Android devices, Kindle Fire, and Samsung Smart TVs. So HBO clearly has access to Commcast's subscriber authentication information, because they use it to grant access on all those other devices. Literally all Comcast has to do is call up HBO and say "okay, go ahead and allow the Roku app to work for Comcast subscribers". Comcast just refuses to give their permission for the Roku app. All the other cable companies allow the use of the Roku app, just not Comcast. My guess is that Roku won't cough up the money that Comcast wants out of them to give their permission for it to be used.


Yeah, wow. That's kind of messed up. I would write lots of angry letters to Comcast over that... it wouldn't help, but you know.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> It is a known issue that some routers' default settings do not allow the Chromecast to work. That is why Google maintains a router compatibility list of routers that are known to work with Chromecast by default:
> 
> https://support.google.com/chromecast/table/3477832?hl=en
> 
> Notice that some routers on the list do not support Chromecast by default and you have to change certain advanced settings to get it to work.


Ah, I see what it is... it's not the Chromecast getting out, it's the phone communicating with the chromecast. It uses multicast and some routers aren't allowing multicast between devices on the network, or aren't doing it properly. Which is preventing the phone from either communicating commands or, more likely, scanning the network for available chromecast devices.

That makes a lot more sense than what I was thinking before...



> I have not found this to be true. I have the Roku 3 and it is very fast and responsive. As for the remote, I don't have a smartphone, so what else besides a remote would I be using?


Right. So, having a smart phone would be step 1. And once you have a smart phone, navigating with the smart phone is much easier than using a remote, even on a responsive device. Remotes are just more clunky than smart phones when navigating online video and audio services.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> Right. So, having a smart phone would be step 1. And once you have a smart phone, navigating with the smart phone is much easier than using a remote, even on a responsive device. Remotes are just more clunky than smart phones when navigating online video and audio services.


I beg to differ. I have the apps for all my devices, and I RARELY use them for direct control. I used to use the iOS app for typing on TiVo before I got a Slide Pro. Other than that, they are pretty useless. I don't want to drain down my iPhone, or have it's bright screen on, or have no physical buttons when I'm trying to watch something. Dedicated remotes are here to stay. Smartphones are a total kludge for most remote control applications. I could see the usefulness if they offer better catalog navigation, but once you find what you want, back to the physical remote... However, in most cases, I can just look up what I want online, and then use the physical remote to search for it. Also, I use the TiVo app a lot for scheduling, but not for direct control...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> Yeah, wow. That's kind of messed up. I would write lots of angry letters to Comcast over that... it wouldn't help, but you know.


I can't figure out why they haven't gotten Roku to work... There's no obvious motive to block it if they support other devices, so I have to assume it's just plain incompetence... given that it's Comcast, I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> I can't figure out why they haven't gotten Roku to work... There's no obvious motive to block it if they support other devices, so I have to assume it's just plain incompetence... given that it's Comcast, I wouldn't be surprised.


It's not just incompetence. Comcast executives have made a deliberate decision not to support anything on Roku. I remember reading some official statement from Comcast on the issue and it was intentionally vague and full of crap on why they haven't done it yet.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Yeah, the Comcast/Roku thing is really annoying. It's not just HBO GO. You can't access Showtime Anytime either. I originally thought that Comcast took this stance because they didn't want it to take away from their On Demand revenue, but now that they allow it on so many other devices, it's clearly not about that. I agree that it's probably a shakedown, and Roku refuses to cough up the dough.

In response to the comments about remotes, I'll take a well laid out hard button remote any day over a smartphone. I personally can't stand touch screen remotes. I like to be able to operate my remote by feel without looking at it. Give me something like this, and I'm truly happy:


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> It's not just incompetence. Comcast executives have made a deliberate decision not to support anything on Roku. I remember reading some official statement from Comcast on the issue and it was intentionally vague and full of crap on why they haven't done it yet.


Do they see it as some sort of threat to their video business? That the Apple TV isn't?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Do they see it as some sort of threat to their video business? That the Apple TV isn't?


My best guess is that Comcast wants to shake down any device manufacturer who wants Comcast customers to have access to the HBOGO app on their device, and Roku isn't willing to cough up the money. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the new Amazon FireTV to get the HBOGO app and how long it will take Comcast to allow their customers to use it.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> My best guess is that Comcast wants to shake down any device manufacturer who wants Comcast customers to have access to the HBOGO app on their device, and Roku isn't willing to cough up the money.


If Comcast can successfully shakedown Netflix, they must laugh at a tiny fish like RoKu. Comcast is a behemoth, and they will only become more powerful once they swallow up TWC.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> My best guess is that Comcast wants to shake down any device manufacturer who wants Comcast customers to have access to the HBOGO app on their device, and Roku isn't willing to cough up the money. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the new Amazon FireTV to get the HBOGO app and how long it will take Comcast to allow their customers to use it.


That doesn't make any sense. My suspicion would be some arcane authentication system that they use has some issue with the way Roku authenticates and bunch of engineers at the two companies are in a standoff about who has to modify what to make it work... it's probably way more boring than the conspiracy theories you like to put forward...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> That doesn't make any sense. My suspicion would be some arcane authentication system that they use has some issue with the way Roku authenticates and bunch of engineers at the two companies are in a standoff about who has to modify what to make it work... it's probably way more boring than the conspiracy theories you like to put forward...


That doesn't make any sense to me, as the HBOGO app authenticates through HBO, not directly through Comcast. Yes, HBO has to then turn around and get the authentication information from Comcast, but I'm pretty sure that if HBO can get the information from Comcast for AppleTVs, XBOXs, and Samsung Smart TV apps, that HBO could get it to activate a Roku app the exact same way if only Comcast would give its permission to do so.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> I beg to differ. I have the apps for all my devices, and I RARELY use them for direct control. I used to use the iOS app for typing on TiVo before I got a Slide Pro. Other than that, they are pretty useless. I don't want to drain down my iPhone, or have it's bright screen on, or have no physical buttons when I'm trying to watch something. Dedicated remotes are here to stay. Smartphones are a total kludge for most remote control applications. I could see the usefulness if they offer better catalog navigation, but once you find what you want, back to the physical remote... However, in most cases, I can just look up what I want online, and then use the physical remote to search for it. Also, I use the TiVo app a lot for scheduling, but not for direct control...


Depends on the app, right? The TiVo App sucks because it's too many steps to get into it. The "boot-up" is worse than just picking up the remote in 99% of use cases.

The Xbox Smartglass app is a mixed bag. If I am digging down into something, like YouTube or Netflix, I like smartglass. If I am just turning up the volume or launching a game, I do not like smartglass. It's a question of "I have to overcome the bootup and connection time."

With Chromecast, there is no bootup and connection time. You literally navigate to the media and push play. I guess there is a connection time, but it's roughly the buffering time of the video + 2-3 seconds.

So, I agree with what you're saying, but I think you're missing that there is clearly a decision rule in here.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> That doesn't make any sense to me, as the HBOGO app authenticates through HBO, not directly through Comcast. Yes, HBO has to then turn around and get the authentication information from Comcast, but I'm pretty sure that if HBO can get the information from Comcast for AppleTVs, XBOXs, and Samsung Smart TV apps, that HBO could get it to activate a Roku app the exact same way if only Comcast would give its permission to do so.


But then wouldn't HBO get everything, regardless of device?



Grakthis said:


> So, I agree with what you're saying, but I think you're missing that there is clearly a decision rule in here.


Even if the app connects instantly, you still have to find and open the app. The remote is right there... I can see uses for the remote control apps, but they do not replace physical remotes.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> But then wouldn't HBO get everything, regardless of device?


Yes, that's the point. HBO already has access to all the information they need to authenticate the HBOGO app on Roku for Comcast customers. The only reason HBO doesn't do it is because Comcast tells them not to. That's what makes it so infuriating, it's not some sort of technical issue, Comcast is just being a dick about it.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Bigg said:


> That doesn't make any sense. My suspicion would be some arcane authentication system that they use has some issue with the way Roku authenticates and bunch of engineers at the two companies are in a standoff about who has to modify what to make it work... it's probably way more boring than the conspiracy theories you like to put forward...


That's not true. The authentication system is already in place. The issue is Comcast has to approve each new device that gets HBOGo support. So it is really a political issue. This is why Directv won't approve HBOGo on Roku (because of Roku's Dish Network affiliations).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

rainwater said:


> That's not true. The authentication system is already in place. The issue is Comcast has to approve each new device that gets HBOGo support. So it is really a political issue. This is why Directv won't approve HBOGo on Roku (because of Roku's Dish Network affiliations).


Interesting. Comcast should get their act together and approve all devices that support it.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Bigg said:


> Interesting. Comcast should get their act together and approve all devices that support it.


They don't won't to approve some of them because they compete with them in other areas. It is a shame but Comcast doesn't care about their customers when it comes to HBO Go.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

rainwater said:


> They don't won't to approve some of them because they compete with them in other areas. It is a shame but Comcast doesn't care about their customers when it comes to HBO Go.


The FCC should make it illegal for Comcast to give the okay for HBO to authenticate some 3rd party devices but not all of them. They should not be allowed to discriminate like this for no reason.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> If your firewall is setup in such a way that the Chromecast cannot stream, then your firewall is broken. It's a non-functional firewall. A firewall should only block EXTERNAL connections from initiating data transfers INTO your network. It should not block internal devices from initiating streams externally.
> 
> I am guessing you are not communicating something correctly here because what you're saying doesn't make much sense unless your router/firewall is configured badly or is REALLY old.
> 
> ...





tarheelblue32 said:


> The FCC should make it illegal for Comcast to give the okay for HBO to authenticate some 3rd party devices but not all of them. They should not be allowed to discriminate like this for no reason.


The FCC has no jurisdiction over a streaming service which is what HBOGo is. It the same service as Amazon Prime Video or Netflix. HBO make money from the service by charging the cable/sat companies based on the number of subscribers to HBO and charge a fee for each device it install on. This apply to MaxGo, Showtime, Epix. This add up to a big chunk of money. This money that not cover by your subscription fee. The CEO of HBO has stated in an interview that they are exploring the possibility of offering HBOGo as a stand alone service.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Johncv said:


> The FCC has no jurisdiction over a streaming service which is what HBOGo is. It the same service as Amazon Prime Video or Netflix. HBO make money from the service by charging the cable/sat companies based on the number of subscribers to HBO and charge a fee for each device it install on. This apply to MaxGo, Showtime, Epix. This add up to a big chunk of money. This money that not cover by your subscription fee. The CEO of HBO has stated in an interview that they are exploring the possibility of offering HBOGo as a stand alone service.


HBOGO is considered to be part of what you get when you subscribe to HBO through your cable company. Since it is, in essence, part of your cable subscription, the FCC might arguably have some jurisdiction in this matter. But even assuming the FCC doesn't have the legal authority to do anything about this, it should still be made illegal. And if there weren't so much corruption in Congress it would be.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

There is a simple answer. HBO should make authentication on ALL devices a requirement for carriage of HBO. That would put Comcast in line real quick!


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> There is a simple answer. HBO should make authentication on ALL devices a requirement for carriage of HBO. That would put Comcast in line real quick!


That is probably exactly what HBO did to make the smaller carriers comply, but Comcast and DirecTV are too big for them to threaten in this way. When the Comcast/Time Warner merger goes through, the problem will only get worse. Comcast is already too big for content providers to stand up to when they need to. The "free market" is clearly not working in this area, and what we need is government intervention/regulation.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

tarheelblue32 said:


> HBOGO is considered to be part of what you get when you subscribe to HBO through your cable company. Since it is, in essence, part of your cable subscription, the FCC might arguably have some jurisdiction in this matter. But even assuming the FCC doesn't have the legal authority to do anything about this, it should still be made illegal. And if there weren't so much corruption in Congress it would be.


The FCC does not have the authority to do anything about online streaming services.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

JosephB said:


> The FCC does not have the authority to do anything about online streaming services.


The who does?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The who does?


You may be shocked to realize, but not everything has to be regulated to the core. No one does. The two companies work out an agreement. It's called free enterprise.

I'm a two time Obama voter who is in favor of classifying ISPs as a common carrier and fully supportive of FCC regulations for things like net neutrality and CableCard or it's replacement, but even I realize that not every single thing in the marketplace has to be regulated or mandated from above.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

JosephB said:


> You may be shocked to realize, but not everything has to be regulated to the core. No one does. The two companies work out an agreement. It's called free enterprise.
> 
> I'm a two time Obama voter who is in favor of classifying ISPs as a common carrier and fully supportive of FCC regulations for things like net neutrality and CableCard or it's replacement, but even I realize that not every single thing in the marketplace has to be regulated or mandated from above.


I would love to have a true "free market" for telecommunications services. Unfortunately, that isn't reality in most areas of this country. So if we can't have that, then I would much rather have regulated monopolies than unregulated monopolies, and right now we have a gross under-regulation in this area.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I would love to have a true "free market" for telecommunications services. Unfortunately, that isn't reality in most areas of this country. So if we can't have that, then I would much rather have regulated monopolies than unregulated monopolies, and right now we have a gross under-regulation in this area.


Online streaming services and IP set top boxes are not an industry with a monopoly.

I absolutely agree that cable and telcos should be regulated. HBOGo, not so much.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

JosephB said:


> Online streaming services and IP set top boxes are not an industry with a monopoly.
> 
> I absolutely agree that cable and telcos should be regulated. HBOGo, not so much.


The whole principle behind the FCC forcing the CableCard standard in the first place was that consumers should be allowed to use whatever set-top box they want to receive the multimedia services that they pay cable companies for. Well, the set-top box I choose to receive the HBO service that I pay Comcast for is the Roku, so Comcast should have to allow me to use it. And Comcast standing in the way of me doing this certainly violates the spirit of the law.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The whole principle behind the FCC forcing the CableCard standard in the first place was that consumers should be allowed to use whatever set-top box they want to receive the multimedia services that they pay cable companies for. Well, the set-top box I choose to receive the HBO service that I pay Comcast for is the Roku, so Comcast should have to allow me to use it. And Comcast standing in the way of me doing this certainly violates the spirit of the law.


CableCard covers linear video, and not VOD. Should every provider have to support TiVo and MCE for VOD? It's a similar thing...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> CableCard covers linear video, and not VOD. Should every provider have to support TiVo and MCE for VOD? It's a similar thing...


That's because VOD really didn't exist back in 1996 when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act. If an updated Telecommunications Act were passed today, I'm sure it would cover much more than just delivery of linear channels and would include things like VOD, and we would have a single, open standard for 2-way communications like AllVid. It's too bad that Congress is apparently unable to do anything useful these days.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> That's because VOD really didn't exist back in 1996 when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act. If an updated Telecommunications Act were passed today, I'm sure it would cover much more than just delivery of linear channels and would include things like VOD, and we would have a single, open standard for 2-way communications like AllVid. It's too bad that Congress is apparently unable to do anything useful these days.


I guess so. Linear video is still the core service. VOD and streaming and the like are ancillary services.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> It's too bad that Congress is apparently unable to do anything useful these days.


That's because the MSOs donate a shi*load to their campaign funds.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

gweempose said:


> That's because the MSOs donate a shi*load to their campaign funds.


Yes, I know. We have essentially legalized corruption in our political system.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Yes, I know. We have essentially legalized corruption in our political system.


Exactly. Although CableCards are the least of the problems that this corruption creates. Our inaction on climate (and by extension energy) policy is by far the biggest and most important, and then there's probably 20 different things that could come after that, from our broken healthcare system to our incarceration laws and the war on drugs, to income inequality, to farm subsidies and obesity to the military industrial complex and war spending, to lack of meaningful gun control, to poor education, to lack of funding for transportation infrastructure, etc, etc.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Exactly. Although CableCards are the least of the problems that this corruption creates. Our inaction on climate (and by extension energy) policy is by far the biggest and most important, and then there's probably 20 different things that could come after that, from our broken healthcare system to our incarceration laws and the war on drugs, to income inequality, to farm subsidies and obesity to the military industrial complex and war spending, to lack of meaningful gun control, to poor education, to lack of funding for transportation infrastructure, etc, etc.


I pretty much agree with everything you said except for the gun control part. My (and the Supreme Court's) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it does bestow upon individuals the right to own and carry firearms for self-protection. So if you want meaningful gun control, then the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I pretty much agree with everything you said except for the gun control part. My (and the Supreme Court's) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it does bestow upon individuals the right to own and carry firearms for self-protection. So if you want meaningful gun control, then the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed.


You don't have to appeal the 2nd Amendment to have reasonable Gun Control. Not only does it have little to do with individual ownership of firearms, but all rights have limits, i.e. the 1st Amendment. I'm also not talking about eliminating the right to own a gun. Just common sense stuff like eliminating background check loopholes, eliminating extended magazines and clips.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> You don't have to appeal the 2nd Amendment to have reasonable Gun Control. Not only does it have little to do with individual ownership of firearms, but all rights have limits, i.e. the 1st Amendment. I'm also not talking about eliminating the right to own a gun. Just common sense stuff like eliminating background check loopholes, eliminating extended magazines and clips.


I think laws like the ban on magazine clips over 10 rounds do little to prevent gun-related crimes and infringe too far on law-abiding gun owners. I think it would be far more effective to pass stricter laws regarding the use of a gun in a crime, something like automatically doubling the sentence for any crime committed with a gun. So, for example, if the penalty for robbing a convenience store is 2 years in prison, it would automatically be doubled to 4 years if you did it with a gun. If the sentence for every crime were doubled if a gun is involved and this policy became common knowledge, it would make some criminals think twice about using a gun.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I think laws like the ban on magazine clips over 10 rounds do little to prevent gun-related crimes and infringe too far on law-abiding gun owners. I think it would be far more effective to pass stricter laws regarding the use of a gun in a crime, something like automatically doubling the sentence for any crime committed with a gun. So, for example, if the penalty for robbing a convenience store is 2 years in prison, it would automatically be doubled to 4 years if you did it with a gun. If the sentence for every crime were doubled if a gun is involved and this policy became common knowledge, it would make some criminals think twice about using a gun.


Those laws might help a bit, but they aren't going to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. Australia has excellent gun control laws that are very effective, but our government is too corrupt and the gun manufacturers/NRA is too powerful to pass anything like what they have. Banning high capacity clips or magazines alone does not limit gun owners' ability to have a gun in any way, as that alone doesn't limit the type of gun or any type of hunting or target/competition shooting. If you need 30 or 50 rounds to hunt or target shoot then you apparently suck at shooting your gun, and are going to burn up a lot of $$$$ of ammo really fast. Also, if you're going out in the woods hunting or to a range to go shoot, I don't think you're so lazy that you can't change magazines occasionally. I don't think banning high capacity clips will magically solve our gun problem in the US, but it's a really small first step that is relatively easy and common sense.

There's a lot of suggestions of how to curb gun violence, and a lot of good ideas (and plenty not so good ones). Two ideas I don't hear much about are: 1) requiring liability insurance on any gun owned, just like a car, and 2) requiring that guns always be locked in a rated, approved gun safe when not in use or being transported, but of course the gun nuts would go completely off their rockers at either of those rather logical and simple ideas. OTOH, maybe the insurance and gun safe manufacturing lobbies...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Australia has excellent gun control laws that are very effective


Yes, the Australian laws are very effective. After a shooting incident, the Australian government basically forced everyone to turn in their guns. You can't do that in this country without repealing the 2nd Amendment. The unfortunate truth is that middle-of-the-road gun control measures just don't work, because criminals will just ignore them. You either have to ban guns completely, making it almost impossible for anyone to get their hands on a gun like Australia and the UK, or you have to allow pretty much anyone who wants one to have one.



Bigg said:


> Banning high capacity clips or magazines alone does not limit gun owners' ability to have a gun in any way, as that alone doesn't limit the type of gun or any type of hunting or target/competition shooting. If you need 30 or 50 rounds to hunt or target shoot then you apparently suck at shooting your gun, and are going to burn up a lot of $$$$ of ammo really fast. Also, if you're going out in the woods hunting or to a range to go shoot, I don't think you're so lazy that you can't change magazines occasionally. I don't think banning high capacity clips will magically solve our gun problem in the US, but it's a really small first step that is relatively easy and common sense.


The old federal assault weapons ban that expired back a few years ago had a limit of 10 round clips. That was absurdly low. My handgun is designed to hold a 15 round clip, and that's pretty standard for an average sized handgun. If a group of 3 or 4 guys breaks into my house, it's conceivable that I could need those extra 5 rounds to fend them off, especially if I am being nice and give them a few warning shots first.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Yes, the Australian laws are very effective. After a shooting incident, the Australian government basically forced everyone to turn in their guns. You can't do that in this country without repealing the 2nd Amendment. The unfortunate truth is that middle-of-the-road gun control measures just don't work, because criminals will just ignore them. You either have to ban guns completely, making it almost impossible for anyone to get their hands on a gun like Australia and the UK, or you have to allow pretty much anyone who wants one to have one.


You can go middle of the road and significantly reduce gun violence if there are fewer guns that end up getting bought and sold illegally. The sheer number of guns is simply ridiculous.



> The old federal assault weapons ban that expired back a few years ago had a limit of 10 round clips. That was absurdly low. My handgun is designed to hold a 15 round clip, and that's pretty standard for an average sized handgun. If a group of 3 or 4 guys breaks into my house, it's conceivable that I could need those extra 5 rounds to fend them off, especially if I am being nice and give them a few warning shots first.


The whole burglar argument is not sound at all. More guns get used against the people who own them or accidentally hurt/kill people than to defeat burglars, so they should be locked up way out of reach in a gun safe, unless the owner is shooting recreationally or hunting. It is irresponsible to keep guns anywhere other than a well secured, properly rated gun safe. If you're really that paranoid after putting in proper deadbolts with strong strike plates and an alarm system, get a Taser or something. Or a German Shepherd. There is no legitimate reason that people need anything more than a 10-round clip/magazine for recreational or hunting purposes.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> The whole burglar argument is not sound at all.


Yes it is.



Bigg said:


> More guns get used against the people who own them or accidentally hurt/kill people than to defeat burglars, so they should be locked up way out of reach in a gun safe, unless the owner is shooting recreationally or hunting.


Limiting gun use/ownership to hunting and recreational shooting is unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment includes the right to possess and use firearms for self-defense. And as you point out, "The sheer number of guns is simply ridiculous." There are so many people with guns in this country, that to not have one for self-defense is almost reckless. If the 2nd Amendment were repealed and nobody in the country had guns, then I would feel a lot safer without one. Unfortunately, that isn't reality.



Bigg said:


> It is irresponsible to keep guns anywhere other than a well secured, properly rated gun safe.


Not always. It depends on the situation. Some people have no young children or live completely alone. There is no reason for these people to keep their firearm locked in a gun safe.



Bigg said:


> If you're really that paranoid after putting in proper deadbolts with strong strike plates and an alarm system, get a Taser or something.


Never bring a Taser to a gun fight.



Bigg said:


> Or a German Shepherd.


I'm allergic to dogs.



Bigg said:


> There is no legitimate reason that people need anything more than a 10-round clip/magazine for recreational or hunting purposes.


You don't have to show a need to exercise a right. But regardless, as stated previously, limiting gun use/ownership to hunting and recreation is unconstitutional, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect to need more than 10 rounds to properly defend yourself (or others) in certain situations.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Yes it is.


No it is not. Having guns that are not locked in a gun safe laying around is far more dangerous than they are helpful. It's fine if people enjoy shooting as a sport or hunting, but it is irresponsible to keep guns that aren't locked away when not in use (or related activities like maintenance).



> Limiting gun use/ownership to hunting and recreational shooting is unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment includes the right to possess and use firearms for self-defense. And as you point out, "The sheer number of guns is simply ridiculous." There are so many people with guns in this country, that to not have one for self-defense is almost reckless. If the 2nd Amendment were repealed and nobody in the country had guns, then I would feel a lot safer without one. Unfortunately, that isn't reality.


The 2nd Amendment gives a well-regulated militia the right to possess and bear arms, not any one person. The problem is, how do you define a well-regulated militia? Could you and your buddy down the street pay $99 to form an LLC or a 501c3 called the "xyz street militia", and thus be granted a constitutional right to have guns? I'm not sure what the answer to that is. It depends on what the legal meaning of "well-regulated" means in the context of an organization under US law. However, I'm not suggesting that we eliminate the ability for individuals not in a militia to own guns (since that would be easily circumvented anyways, as people in every state would just form a militia, and people could pay a nominal fee of $100/year or something to be part of it and thus have guns). However, we need some common sense laws about who can get guns, what types of guns they can get, what types of magazines and clips they can get, how guns are registered, stored, and insured, and the like.

I do not own firearms. I am not interested in hunting or shooting (although we need open season on deer around here, it's getting ridiculous!), hence I don't own any firearms, and I never will. If I feel that crazy paranoid, I will get a taser or some other non-lethal defense device.



> Not always. It depends on the situation. Some people have no young children or live completely alone. There is no reason for these people to keep their firearm locked in a gun safe.


Someone could break in an steal them. It's a lot harder to steal a whole gun safe, especially a big one.



> Never bring a Taser to a gun fight.


Tasers are better defense weapons, as they are non-lethal and can be used before you're completely sure who or what you're shooting at.



> I'm allergic to dogs.


Then don't get a dog.



> You don't have to show a need to exercise a right. But regardless, as stated previously, limiting gun use/ownership to hunting and recreation is unconstitutional, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect to need more than 10 rounds to properly defend yourself (or others) in certain situations.


That's ridiculous. If you can't shoot something or someone with 10 rounds, you should learn how to shoot. That's why the wannabe gangsters in Chicago have 30 round clips, they suck at shooting, so they often need 30 rounds to even injure someone.

Unfortunately, this country has absolutely no guts in terms of regulating guns and keeping them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. However, that's just one little symptom of the larger corruption of government, which I think is how this discussion started.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> The 2nd Amendment gives a well-regulated militia the right to possess and bear arms, not any one person.


The Supreme Court of the United States (and I) disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. See District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

"Holding: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The Supreme Court of the United States (and I) disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. See District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
> 
> "Holding: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


I've studied the 2nd Amendment at some length, and I know what it says and what it doesn't.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> I've studied the 2nd Amendment at some length, and I know what it says and what it doesn't.


Apparently not.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

When did this forum turn into the Happy Hour?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Apparently not.


Well, I have, and I know what it says and what it doesn't. The problem, like I said above, comes in determining what a militia is.

However, I don't think it really matters, as virtually no one, not even the supporters of the most strict gun control, want to stop individuals from owning guns, they just want to put reasonable restrictions on people who shouldn't own guns, or on types of guns that people shouldn't own.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Well, I have, and I know what it says and what it doesn't. The problem, like I said above, comes in determining what a militia is.


Actually, it has nothing to do with determining what a militia is. Back when I was in law school, there was considerable debate about just what the 2nd Amendment actually meant due to the lack of Supreme Court case law on the subject. But since then there have been 2 landmark Supreme Court cases that have now told us exactly what the legal meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, and participation in a militia has absolutely nothing to do with the right to own a gun for personal self-defense. You might want to re-read the Supreme Court's case law on this point.



Bigg said:


> However, I don't think it really matters, as virtually no one, not even the supporters of the most strict gun control, want to stop individuals from owning guns, they just want to put reasonable restrictions on people who shouldn't own guns, or on types of guns that people shouldn't own.


We already have reasonable restrictions on what types of guns people can own. For example, you can't own a fully automatic machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun. Further restrictions would be unreasonable.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Actually, it has nothing to do with determining what a militia is. Back when I was in law school, there was considerable debate about just what the 2nd Amendment actually meant due to the lack of Supreme Court case law on the subject. But since then there have been 2 landmark Supreme Court cases that have now told us exactly what the legal meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, and participation in a militia has absolutely nothing to do with the right to own a gun for personal self-defense. You might want to re-read the Supreme Court's case law on this point.


If you want to go all 2nd-Amendment on a discussion about gun rights (which I don't think is really relevant, as what interpretation you end up in only affects the most stringent forms of gun control that few, even staunch gun control advocates, would support), then you have to look at what the 2nd Amendment guarantees. It guarantees a "well-regulated militia" the right to bear arms. So the whole thing thus depends on what the heck a "well-regulated militia" actually IS. Based on the way the 2nd Amendment is written, you and your friend down the street forming an LLC or 501c3 that is called the "something something militia" doesn't seem far-fetched at all to me.



> We already have reasonable restrictions on what types of guns people can own. For example, you can't own a fully automatic machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun. Further restrictions would be unreasonable.


Further restrictions would not be unreasonable at all, i.e. the assault weapons ban, which we had for a while until it ran out, and the politicians in Washington wouldn't renew it.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> If you want to go all 2nd-Amendment on a discussion about gun rights (which I don't think is really relevant, as what interpretation you end up in only affects the most stringent forms of gun control that few, even staunch gun control advocates, would support), then you have to look at what the 2nd Amendment guarantees. It guarantees a "well-regulated militia" the right to bear arms. So the whole thing thus depends on what the heck a "well-regulated militia" actually IS. Based on the way the 2nd Amendment is written, you and your friend down the street forming an LLC or 501c3 that is called the "something something militia" doesn't seem far-fetched at all to me.


We seem to be going round and round in circles, but I'm going to try one more time since you are just wrong about this. The full text of the 2nd Amendment is:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now, the introductory "militia" clause that you keep referring to certainly is there, but its exact meaning is very ambiguous, and Constitutional scholars and historians have been debating its meaning for over a century. Even so, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter as to what the text of the Constitution means, and they have decided that the introductory clause is essentially meaningless. It is certainly your right to disagree with the Supreme Court's determination, but their determination is the law of the land unless/until a future Supreme Court reverses that decision or until the text of the Constitution is changed through a Constitutional amendment.



Bigg said:


> Further restrictions would not be unreasonable at all, i.e. the assault weapons ban, which we had for a while until it ran out, and the politicians in Washington wouldn't renew it.


You and I clearly disagree about what is and is not reasonable, but ultimately it will be the Supreme Court that determines that.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

This all sounds like bad news for TiVo and Chromecast users.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> We seem to be going round and round in circles, but I'm going to try one more time since you are just wrong about this.


We are going around in circles. I stand by my interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment says.



> You and I clearly disagree about what is and is not reasonable, but ultimately it will be the Supreme Court that determines that.


Maybe. Or other courts. There are all sorts of ways that laws could get challenged, and with the gun manufacturer lobby/NRA lobby so strong, unfortunately, what few common sense laws get put in place probably will get challenged. And even if you can twist the 2nd Amendment to say that an individual who is not part of a militia has a constitutional right to bear arms, then you still have to determine what exactly that right entails, and what limits there are to it. All rights have limits, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, etc.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> I stand by my interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment says....And even if you can twist the 2nd Amendment to say that an individual who is not part of a militia has a constitutional right to bear arms, then you still have to determine what exactly that right entails


I'm still not sure if you're just trolling or are simply being willfully ignorant of the Supreme Court's recent rulings on the 2nd Amendment. Either way, I stand by my determination that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is inconsistent with the current Supreme Court's interpretation. Whether you want to admit that or not is inconsequential.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I'm still not sure if you're just trolling or are simply being willfully ignorant of the Supreme Court's recent rulings on the 2nd Amendment. Either way, I stand by my determination that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is inconsistent with the current Supreme Court's interpretation. Whether you want to admit that or not is inconsequential.


I read it, interpreted it, and I stand by that interpretation. I'm not trolling.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The Supreme Court of the United States (and I) disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. See District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
> 
> "Holding: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


The Supreme Court also once held that an African-American was equal to 2/3 of a white person. Just because the Supreme Court says something, doesn't make it right or true. It is just the law, until the law is changed or the Supreme Court issues a new decision.

Of course, what ANY of this has to do with FireTV and the possible enhancement (or lack thereof) of Amazon streaming services on competitive devices is a mystery to me.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> I read it, interpreted it, and I stand by that interpretation. I'm not trolling.


Do you understand that your interpretation is completely different than that of the current Supreme Court majority, and that when it comes to the law it's the opinion of the Supreme Court that matters? Because thus far in this discussion you have refused to acknowledge that minor little fact.


----------

