Why aren't video files showing on receiver?

[jagabo]

One problem I keep having with it when trying to use a flash drive in a USB port is that the only time I can access it is right after I plug it in. That's when it appears on the screen and gives me options on what to do next. If I go to something else, or hit the "back" button on the remote, then I lose access to the flash drive's contents. Even when I press the "Input" button on the remote, I don't get to choose any of the USB ports.

That's because the USB port isn't a video input. You can't seem to get it through you head: USB is a file source, not a video source. The manual says to press the Home button to access USB...

[usually_quiet]

As for the other ideas, I don't have a blue ray player, TV media player or DVR or game player. All I have access to now is the TV and receiver.

You never mentioned the 4K TV's make and model. Just for fun, I'd like to check to see what functions the TV's USB ports provide.

Oh yeah, it's a Sony XBR-55X700D
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-55-class-54-6-diag--led-2160p-smart-4k-ultra-hd-tv-bl...?skuId=4804403

One problem I keep having with it when trying to use a flash drive in a USB port is that the only time I can access it is right after I plug it in. That's when it appears on the screen and gives me options on what to do next. If I go to something else, or hit the "back" button on the remote, then I lose access to the flash drive's contents. Even when I press the "Input" button on the remote, I don't get to choose any of the USB ports. It only shows me the HDMI ports. So then when I want to access the contents of the flash drive again, I have to pull the drive out of the USB port and then plug it back in again to make it reappear on the screen.

I took a look at the user guide. The USB connection on the TV is for what I've been calling the TV's built-in media player. The TV seems to support a decent assortment of media file types and codecs too, so the chances that it will play the MP4 file are reasonably good. I can't explain why the USB drive is only detected when it is first inserted. None of the TVs that I have used with a USB flash drive fail to recognize the presence of one that has been inserted a while -- even days or weeks.

[Edit]Looks like jagabo found the relevant section of the manual and solved the problem.

[johnmeyer]

One problem I keep having with it when trying to use a flash drive in a USB port is that the only time I can access it is right after I plug it in. That's when it appears on the screen and gives me options on what to do next. If I go to something else, or hit the "back" button on the remote, then I lose access to the flash drive's contents. Even when I press the "Input" button on the remote, I don't get to choose any of the USB ports. It only shows me the HDMI ports. So then when I want to access the contents of the flash drive again, I have to pull the drive out of the USB port and then plug it back in again to make it reappear on the screen.

I strongly suggest you download and read the help guide for your TV set:

https://docs.sony.com/release//Help_C271100161.pdf

I think you may find that you can do most of what you are trying to do, including using your Android phone as a source, but only if you use the TV as the source, rather than the receiver. I have already suggested twice that you do this, and that you connect the optical audio output from the TV back to your receiver. You'll have to do this to watch Netflix, which I note has its own button on your TV's remote.

For instance, from that document:

"Google Cast allows you to wirelessly cast content from your favorite websites and apps to your TV, directly from your computer or mobile device."

From page 23 of that document:

"If the USB device connected to the TV has a power switch, turn it on. Press the HOME button, then select the desired item. Select [Album] to view photos, [Music] to play music, and [Video] to play movies. Press the button and select [Folders] from the menu that is displayed. Browse the list of folders."

[Aldbaran]

One problem I keep having with it when trying to use a flash drive in a USB port is that the only time I can access it is right after I plug it in. That's when it appears on the screen and gives me options on what to do next. If I go to something else, or hit the "back" button on the remote, then I lose access to the flash drive's contents. Even when I press the "Input" button on the remote, I don't get to choose any of the USB ports.

That's because the USB port isn't a video input. You can't seem to get it through you head: USB is a file source, not a video source. The manual says to press the Home button to access USB...

Ok, I guess I'm not totally familiar with all the terms, such as video source and file source. Since the files on the USB drive are video files, I considered them to be a video source, but I guess that's not the correct definition. This TV is my dad's first non-CRT TV, and it's also the first one I've ever dealt with since my own TV is still an old CRT type.

[Aldbaran]

One problem I keep having with it when trying to use a flash drive in a USB port is that the only time I can access it is right after I plug it in. That's when it appears on the screen and gives me options on what to do next. If I go to something else, or hit the "back" button on the remote, then I lose access to the flash drive's contents. Even when I press the "Input" button on the remote, I don't get to choose any of the USB ports. It only shows me the HDMI ports. So then when I want to access the contents of the flash drive again, I have to pull the drive out of the USB port and then plug it back in again to make it reappear on the screen.

I strongly suggest you download and read the help guide for your TV set:

https://docs.sony.com/release//Help_C271100161.pdf

I think you may find that you can do most of what you are trying to do, including using your Android phone as a source, but only if you use the TV as the source, rather than the receiver. I have already suggested twice that you do this, and that you connect the optical audio output from the TV back to your receiver. You'll have to do this to watch Netflix, which I note has its own button on your TV's remote.

For instance, from that document:

"Google Cast allows you to wirelessly cast content from your favorite websites and apps to your TV, directly from your computer or mobile device."

From page 23 of that document:

"If the USB device connected to the TV has a power switch, turn it on. Press the HOME button, then select the desired item. Select [Album] to view photos, [Music] to play music, and [Video] to play movies. Press the button and select [Folders] from the menu that is displayed. Browse the list of folders."

Thanks! I have it now and will look through it. Is there a way to read it on the TV? So far, I haven't seen any indication that it can. I have the downloaded online instructions for the receiver and tried viewing that on the TV, but couldn't. I thought it would be nice to somehow have the pdf file permanently on the TV so it could be accessed anytime right where it's needed.
BTW, we don't have internet access for the TV, so the online features aren't available.

[johnmeyer]

Thanks! I have it now and will look through it. Is there a way to read it on the TV? So far, I haven't seen any indication that it can. I have the downloaded online instructions for the receiver and tried viewing that on the TV, but couldn't. I thought it would be nice to somehow have the pdf file permanently on the TV so it could be accessed anytime right where it's needed.
BTW, we don't have internet access for the TV, so the online features aren't available.

First of all, Internet access, if you can swing it, is a real game changer. In fact, within a few years it may be more than that because it is quite clear that most people under thirty don't subscribe to cable or satellite TV and instead watch all their video on their laptops, phones, or TVs that are connected to the Internet. Thus, I expect that cable and satellite TV will become less interesting (and some companies may quit offering it) and all TV shows will be streamed over the Internet. There are already quite a few very popular TV series that can only be watched this way.

As for reading PDF files on the TV set, I'm not aware of any TV set or receiver that can do this. The reason is identical to the reason given for playing video files: the TV would need to have PDF reading software installed.

If you want to read computer files (Word documents; PDF files, spreadsheets, odd photo formats, etc.) then you should plan to use a laptop that has an HDMI or Displayport connection (which can be trivially converted to HDMI) and attach it to your TV set. Someone gave me a wireless keyboard and mouse with which I control a laptop that sits under my TV set. I can surf the Internet on the big screen and do all the things one does on their computer, but with a 55" LCD screen that everyone can watch.

[LMotlow]

First of all, Internet access, if you can swing it, is a real game changer. In fact, within a few years it may be more than that because it is quite clear that most people under thirty don't subscribe to cable or satellite TV and instead watch all their video on their laptops, phones, or TVs that are connected to the Internet. Thus, I expect that cable and satellite TV will become less interesting (and some companies may quit offering it) and all TV shows will be streamed over the Internet. There are already quite a few very popular TV series that can only be watched this way.

Yes, I've noticed how quality has gone downhill. You mean it's going to get worse? Good thing I have alternatives.

[johnmeyer]

First of all, Internet access, if you can swing it, is a real game changer. In fact, within a few years it may be more than that because it is quite clear that most people under thirty don't subscribe to cable or satellite TV and instead watch all their video on their laptops, phones, or TVs that are connected to the Internet. Thus, I expect that cable and satellite TV will become less interesting (and some companies may quit offering it) and all TV shows will be streamed over the Internet. There are already quite a few very popular TV series that can only be watched this way.

Yes, I've noticed how quality has gone downhill. You mean it's going to get worse? Good thing I have alternatives.

I wasn't trying to make any comment about quality. However, there is no doubt that digital video quality is quite variable, and as the satellite, cable, and telephone companies deliver more channels, they continue to use more and more compression, resulting in worse quality.

Streaming quality is all over the map because it is a function of so many different variables: the source material; your Internet speed; and the hardware and software you use to handshake with the streaming service, and then decode the stream. I find that I get wildly different streaming results between several different ways of streaming a given service. For instance, the XBox360 provides far better quality than my Windows laptop, both connected to the Internet via Ethernet cable, and both connected to the TV via HDMI.

[LMotlow]

I wasn't trying to make any comment about quality. However, there is no doubt that digital video quality is quite variable, and as the satellite, cable, and telephone companies deliver more channels, they continue to use more and more compression, resulting in worse quality.

Streaming quality is all over the map because it is a function of so many different variables: the source material; your Internet speed; and the hardware and software you use to handshake with the streaming service, and then decode the stream. I find that I get wildly different streaming results between several different ways of streaming a given service. For instance, the XBox360 provides far better quality than my Windows laptop, both connected to the Internet via Ethernet cable, and both connected to the TV via HDMI.

So now the XBox360 is your ultimate experience as an electrified cave dweller. And you pay money for this stuff you mention?

The whole a/v experience gets less inviting with each "innovation". There was a time when the only stations I'd watch were PBS and TCM because there were more commercials on cable TV than there was content. Then I stopped going to the movies when film disappeared and the front box office was charging up to $20 to watch murky digital detritus that was no better than Netflix mutlilations. With each year you have to ingest a flood of new instructions, exclusions, limitations, gadgets, gizmos, adapters, and financial sacrifices and esthetic concessions just to get a picture with sound on a TV -- and not that you're getting that much to begin with. You get progressively less.

I understand and accept that you're an apologist for an industry that pays your rent. From my end, however, it's just another ripoff. My TV cable box now remains turned off so much of the time, I may as well get rid of it. And nothing would annoy me more than having to watch movies on a PC screen, much less on a game board or a cell phone. That's fine for the infrequent glance or a weather report, but they're all poor excuses for involving entertainment. There are other things happening in the world, and they don't require buttons, icons, or subscription payments.

But it's still interesting to check on a forum now and then and see what others are up to. It's like watching loyal followers engage in strange tribal rituals. And occasionally, the information is useful and the comments are interesting. Thank you for the feedback. Always something to learn from.

[johnmeyer]

LTMotLow,

Great rant!

However, I'm not sure what you've ever read from me that makes you think I work in the TV industry, or that I am an "apologist" for them. My last post actually talked about how the industry as we know it is likely to go away, and that the part of the industry which does the delivery (the satellite and cable TV companies) continuously degrade the quality of the image in order to squeeze more channels into a limited bandwidth. My only comment about the XBox was that, when streaming Netflix, I get a much better picture from it than I do from my laptop. As for streaming vs. cable/satellite vs. OTA vs. Blu-Ray, there is a difference in quality, to be sure, but each technology is capable of some pretty impressive video quality, and that quality is infinitely better than anything I ever got with SD. Therefore, as a general statement, our video today is not worse than what we had fifteen years ago.

Put another way, I still have my laserdisc collection, but I don't watch them much.

As for it being a ripoff, I didn't make any comment about fees. I actually don't know what the right fee structure might be. Someone has to pay for a thousand people to work on a big animation project, or for the creation of all the special effects in each Star Wars movie. Theater revenue alone doesn't begin to cover these costs. Even with more traditional movies like Clint Eastwood still makes, the costs add up pretty quickly. I don't think any major motion picture -- even those with low-budge talent -- gets made for much under $10 million.

I won't even attempt to catalog the costs involved in bringing a sporting event to TV, even those events which use "amateur" talent, like college sports.

I totally agree with you about the commercial exhibition of films having gone way downhill. I haven't been to a movie theater for over a decade, and this is from someone who has rated over 1,000 movies on Netflix (I've probably seen several times that many movies). I've seen all 100 of most "top 100" lists. I used to go to the theater at least once a week.

Not anymore.

The future is streaming, and payment will either be per show (like Amazon charges for their non-Prime movies), or through advertising (as Google/YouTube is now aggressively doing). It is quite clear that the "package pricing" pushed for the last quarter century, where you have to buy 100 channels just to get the ten that you actually watch, is most definitely on its way out. That, in turn, is going to seriously damage some companies, most notably ESPN, who gets the lion's share of the revenue from most cable/satellite packages in which it is included. Once they start to get shut out, the revenue that flows from them, back through their advertisers to the sports franchises and finally to their players who have $10 million per year contracts will begin to dry up. The same thing applies to the revenue flow back to the TV and movie production houses that actually make the "product" that we watch in theaters and on our TV screens.

Once the sports (and movie) money train begins to derail, the entire cable and satellite model will unravel. It will probably happen relatively quickly once it starts. I think we are only a few years away from some pretty major upheavals.

[usually_quiet]

Thanks! I have it now and will look through it. Is there a way to read it on the TV? So far, I haven't seen any indication that it can. I have the downloaded online instructions for the receiver and tried viewing that on the TV, but couldn't. I thought it would be nice to somehow have the pdf file permanently on the TV so it could be accessed anytime right where it's needed.
BTW, we don't have internet access for the TV, so the online features aren't available.

I suspect that the only way to read the Online Help Guide using the TV alone is via an Internet connection.

Sony's most recent smart TVs have Android as their OS, so it might be possible to sideload a PDF reader app, but I don't think these TVs provide any means for users to store documents internally and the TV probably lacks the ability to read document files from external storage.

My mother's Samsung smart TV provides access to an internal copy of the complete user guide, but honestly it is much easier to view the user guide on a laptop so I can use the TV's settings menus at the same time.

[Aldbaran]

Thanks! I have it now and will look through it. Is there a way to read it on the TV? So far, I haven't seen any indication that it can. I have the downloaded online instructions for the receiver and tried viewing that on the TV, but couldn't. I thought it would be nice to somehow have the pdf file permanently on the TV so it could be accessed anytime right where it's needed.
BTW, we don't have internet access for the TV, so the online features aren't available.

I suspect that the only way to read the Online Help Guide using the TV alone is via an Internet connection.

Sony's most recent smart TVs have Android as their OS, so it might be possible to sideload a PDF reader app, but I don't think these TVs provide any means for users to store documents internally and the TV probably lacks the ability to read document files from external storage.

My mother's Samsung smart TV provides access to an internal copy of the complete user guide, but honestly it is much easier to view the user guide on a laptop so I can use the TV's settings menus at the same time.

Well, my dad is 77, and I'm just doing the research for him. He currently has Basic cable and a few movie channels. I've mentioned to him that he could get internet access for around $40 (I think that's what it is here. I tried looking it up, but the company only likes to talk about the price they'd charge if you "bundle" it with cable and telephone service). I've heard there are streaming services that have to be subscribed to after buying some kind of equipment, and then he'd have something about equal to cable as far as TV watching goes. I've mentioned that the internet has far more than that, but he says he doesn't care about that.

[usually_quiet]

Well, my dad is 77, and I'm just doing the research for him. He currently has Basic cable and a few movie channels. I've mentioned to him that he could get internet access for around $40 (I think that's what it is here. I tried looking it up, but the company only likes to talk about the price they'd charge if you "bundle" it with cable and telephone service). I've heard there are streaming services that have to be subscribed to after buying some kind of equipment, and then he'd have something about equal to cable as far as TV watching goes. I've mentioned that the internet has far more than that, but he says he doesn't care about that.

Too bad. My mother is over 90 (but still sharp), and although she's not computer literate, she is finding that using the Internet is getting to be more and more of a necessity as time goes on. I have to provide on-site tech support and operate the PC, but with my help Mom enjoys shopping on Amazon and tracking her investments online, among other things.

[johnmeyer]

As someone who, today, just officially joined the senior set, I know lots of people who are quite old for whom the Internet is as necessary as it is for any "millenial."

As for costs, you don't need screaming fast Internet to stream video, and therefore don't need to spend top dollar for super high speeds. I used to only get 4 Mbps here in the boonies, and was able to stream HD, but it was borderline. I now get 12-15 Mbps, and that is plenty enough. I think you'll find that most cable and phone Internet services have this lower-end service available for not much money. You don't need to get more than that.

As for paying money on top of the Internet access in order to actually get content, there is a LOT of stuff that is free, including YouTube. I get visited every few months by a guy who is about to turn eighty, but doesn't have Internet. All he wants to do when he visits is have me fire up my computer, attach it to the TV, and watch clips of Sinatra, Stan Getz, and other singers and musicians from the 40s and 50s. There are thousands of these clips, and they are free.

If you have an Amazon Prime subscription ($100/year), then you have access to thousands of movies and TV shows, for free. In addition, unlike Netflix which actually has a pathetic inventory of movies for streaming, Amazon streams almost everything. You'll have to pay for some of the more recent movies, typically about $4 / movie, even if you have Prime, but at least you can get them, right now this minute, and you can get just about anything you can think of. This cost ($4) is nothing compared to going to the theater, and is a fraction of what you pay to most TV services (like Comcast) for a subscription to one of the movies services (like Showtime or HBO), none of which provides more than a few dozen movies a month, even on the streaming version of their services.

[Aldbaran]

As someone who, today, just officially joined the senior set, I know lots of people who are quite old for whom the Internet is as necessary as it is for any "millenial."

As for costs, you don't need screaming fast Internet to stream video, and therefore don't need to spend top dollar for super high speeds. I used to only get 4 Mbps here in the boonies, and was able to stream HD, but it was borderline. I now get 12-15 Mbps, and that is plenty enough. I think you'll find that most cable and phone Internet services have this lower-end service available for not much money. You don't need to get more than that.

As for paying money on top of the Internet access in order to actually get content, there is a LOT of stuff that is free, including YouTube. I get visited every few months by a guy who is about to turn eighty, but doesn't have Internet. All he wants to do when he visits is have me fire up my computer, attach it to the TV, and watch clips of Sinatra, Stan Getz, and other singers and musicians from the 40s and 50s. There are thousands of these clips, and they are free.

If you have an Amazon Prime subscription ($100/year), then you have access to thousands of movies and TV shows, for free. In addition, unlike Netflix which actually has a pathetic inventory of movies for streaming, Amazon streams almost everything. You'll have to pay for some of the more recent movies, typically about $4 / movie, even if you have Prime, but at least you can get them, right now this minute, and you can get just about anything you can think of. This cost ($4) is nothing compared to going to the theater, and is a fraction of what you pay to most TV services (like Comcast) for a subscription to one of the movies services (like Showtime or HBO), none of which provides more than a few dozen movies a month, even on the streaming version of their services.

I do wish I could get him interested, but so far I haven't had any luck. I tell him all the time about the stuff I'm able to do on the internet and I even made him a big list of all the things he could do if he had it. I even explained how his new TV is much like a computer and can allow him to use the internet if he had the service. I don't think he'd be very interested in Youtube videos. He's more of a traditional TV guy that likes the idea of simply turning channels and seeing what's on. Heck, I've even told him that I can get specific songs for him if there's certain ones he likes, and then can save them on a flashdrive that he could plug into his receiver to listen to at any time. Not interested! But he has a feature on his cable service called "Music Choice", where he can tune into different types of music and listen to whatever is on at the time. My older brother isn't much better this way. He refuses to go on the internet because he's afraid he'd get a virus, despite what I tell him about how antivirus software is free and effective and how I've been doing just fine while using the internet. I guess this sort of old-fashioned and outdated thinking runs in the family, although I've been trying to be more open minded about these things. I myself still use an antenna for TV reception. I used to have cable but just wasn't impressed with what's on it. If I had a choice between either cable or internet, I'd pick internet. But enough rambling from me.

You mentioned Amazon Prime for $100 a year. I tried looking it up on Google and all I found was a TV service that costs $10.99 and is included with Prime. I don't understand how that works. What kind of service is it? Is it similar to watching cable TV in that there are shows that are scheduled on separate channels?

[johnmeyer]

I'm amazed you couldn't find information about Amazon Prime Movies. It is very heavily marketed. Here is a brief description, by Amazon themselves:

Amazon Prime Movies

There are indeed a few add-on services that Amazon provides. For instance, they have an add-on service, which operates within the user interface for Amazon Prime Movies, but which provides a huge collection of music concerts from the past 50 years. The service is called Qello, and its price is almost exactly what you described. However, you don't need any of these add-ons in order to get an immense array of content, mostly movies and TV shows.

BTW, an annual Amazon Prime membership also gives you access to their music library, much of it also available for no additional fees beyond the annual membership fee. However, if you don't have a browser, then some of the main benefits of Prime membership, like two-day shipping on products ordered from Amazon, won't be available to you or your family members.

The best way to convince them that this all might be useful is to actually show them. You might just want to go out and buy one of the Roku models, hook it up to your TV set, and have them over to experience it. The Roku is a one-time purchase ($20 - $100, depending on which model you get). There are no fees to Roku after the purchase. You can immediately start watching thousands of channels and sites, and can then subscribe to various services, but only if you are interested in their content:

Roku

There are many other options besides Roku, but it is the device which seems to be most-often recommended for people who want to easily get streaming content on their TV screen.

P.S. I don't actually own a Roku, and have no affiliation with the company.

[jagabo]

You mentioned Amazon Prime for $100 a year. I tried looking it up on Google and all I found was a TV service that costs $10.99 and is included with Prime. I don't understand how that works. What kind of service is it? Is it similar to watching cable TV in that there are shows that are scheduled on separate channels?

Amazon Prime Video is included in Amazon Prime (which includes free two day shipping, special/exclusive deals, some free Kindle books, etc.). It gets you lots of free streaming video and audio.

https://www.amazon.com/Prime-Video/s/browse/ref=nav_shopall_aiv_piv?_encoding=UTF8&node=2676882011

[Aldbaran]

I'm amazed you couldn't find information about Amazon Prime Movies. It is very heavily marketed. Here is a brief description, by Amazon themselves:

Amazon Prime Movies

There are indeed a few add-on services that Amazon provides. For instance, they have an add-on service, which operates within the user interface for Amazon Prime Movies, but which provides a huge collection of music concerts from the past 50 years. The service is called Qello, and its price is almost exactly what you described. However, you don't need any of these add-ons in order to get an immense array of content, mostly movies and TV shows.

BTW, an annual Amazon Prime membership also gives you access to their music library, much of it also available for no additional fees beyond the annual membership fee. However, if you don't have a browser, then some of the main benefits of Prime membership, like two-day shipping on products ordered from Amazon, won't be available to you or your family members.

The best way to convince them that this all might be useful is to actually show them. You might just want to go out and buy one of the Roku models, hook it up to your TV set, and have them over to experience it. The Roku is a one-time purchase ($20 - $100, depending on which model you get). There are no fees to Roku after the purchase. You can immediately start watching thousands of channels and sites, and can then subscribe to various services, but only if you are interested in their content:

Roku

There are many other options besides Roku, but it is the device which seems to be most-often recommended for people who want to easily get streaming content on their TV screen.

P.S. I don't actually own a Roku, and have no affiliation with the company.

This Roku device, and others like them--is that something else that needs to be bought and added to the TV in order to access the services you'd get with Amazon Prime? Or does the TV itself contain the hardware/software needed for that? The TV my dad has is only a few weeks old.
So far, it looks like the cost is around $40 for internet service, less than $10 per month for Amazon Prime, and up to $100 for a Roku or similar device (assuming it's needed). That would replace the $60 or so my dad is paying for basic cable and 2 movie channels. I'll be seeing my dad tomorrow and let him know about this option. It sure sounds like a winner to me!

[jagabo]

So far, it looks like the cost is around $40 for internet service, less than $10 per month for Amazon Prime, and up to $100 for a Roku or similar device (assuming it's needed). That would replace the $60 or so my dad is paying for basic cable and 2 movie channels. I'll be seeing my dad tomorrow and let him know about this option. It sure sounds like a winner to me!

It's not if your dad likes to watch sports. Or current TV shows. Or likes to flip back and forth between two shows. Or likes to sit back and channel surf. Or if your dad is averse to some new fangled electronic device.

I bought my dad (80+ years old now) a Roku and hooked it up to his TV so he could watch Netflix via my account. Showed him how to use it. He never once touched it.

[lingyi]

+1 to jagabo's post. I have a Roku, an Android Box (built into your Dad's TV), two external media players and Amazon Prime (Amazon Video included), but still prefer cable for immediacy and convenience. In addition, you'll have to install an antenna for local channels.

I've tried Netflix, Hulu and several other streaming services and personally wouldn't pay for streaming video if it wasn't included with Amazon Prime.

The good news is that your Dad's TV likely has Amazon Video capability built in, as well as Youtube, Hulu and Netflix and others so no need for an external box. I'd suggest getting internet first and seeing how Dad likes streaming before cutting the cable. Both Amazon Prime and Amazon Video have free 30 day trials, so I'd go with Prime since it's $99/yr. (less if you have a student sign up).

[jagabo]

The good news is that your Dad's TV likely has Amazon Video capability built in, as well as Youtube, Hulu and Netflix and others so no need for an external box.

Yes, the bestbuy link posted earlier reads:

Stream from Netflix, YouTube, Pandora, Amazon Video, Google Play, and more

[Aldbaran]

So far, it looks like the cost is around $40 for internet service, less than $10 per month for Amazon Prime, and up to $100 for a Roku or similar device (assuming it's needed). That would replace the $60 or so my dad is paying for basic cable and 2 movie channels. I'll be seeing my dad tomorrow and let him know about this option. It sure sounds like a winner to me!

It's not if your dad likes to watch sports. Or current TV shows. Or likes to flip back and forth between two shows. Or likes to sit back and channel surf. Or if your dad is averse to some new fangled electronic device.

I bought my dad (80+ years old now) a Roku and hooked it up to his TV so he could watch Netflix via my account. Showed him how to use it. He never once touched it.

Yeah, I know what you mean. When uncle got my grandmother a VCR a long time ago, she didn't want anything to do with it. She continued using her black & White TV to get bad reception to watch Lawrence Welk. She said she didn't mind not being able to see it very well because she mostly interested in the music parts anyway. He later got her a color TV, which she loved but had a hard time understanding how to use the remote.

[Aldbaran]

+1 to jagabo's post. I have a Roku, an Android Box (built into your Dad's TV), two external media players and Amazon Prime (Amazon Video included), but still prefer cable for immediacy and convenience. In addition, you'll have to install an antenna for local channels.

I've tried Netflix, Hulu and several other streaming services and personally wouldn't pay for streaming video if it wasn't included with Amazon Prime.

The good news is that your Dad's TV likely has Amazon Video capability built in, as well as Youtube, Hulu and Netflix and others so no need for an external box. I'd suggest getting internet first and seeing how Dad likes streaming before cutting the cable. Both Amazon Prime and Amazon Video have free 30 day trials, so I'd go with Prime since it's $99/yr. (less if you have a student sign up).

That does sound like good news, but it doesn't appear that my dad is interested in trying anything new. I told him about how he could have more than what he has now for around $48 a month instead of paying his current $70 for cable. He's not the least bit interested. I guess he'd rather continue paying more and getting less for it. Sometimes I wonder why I bother trying to help if he refuses to be helped.

[johnmeyer]

That does sound like good news, but it doesn't appear that my dad is interested in trying anything new. I told him about how he could have more than what he has now for around $48 a month instead of paying his current $70 for cable. He's not the least bit interested. I guess he'd rather continue paying more and getting less for it. Sometimes I wonder why I bother trying to help if he refuses to be helped.

As someone who is now in the senior citizen category (ugh!), I see quite a range of attitudes and acceptance of this newer media technology among my peers, including those in assisted living. While some have barely gotten beyond the B&W TV without a remote (which is all I had until the mid 1980s), most are completely "plugged in" to the Internet, and absolutely love email (can't live without it, actually). They generally enjoy playing the video clips their grandchildren send to them, even though they might have no idea how to do anything other than press the "play" button.

Bottom line: keep pushing to get that TV connected to the Internet. Even if he doesn't subscribe to a service, just being able to watch the free content should be very interesting, once he's experienced it (you'll have to lead the horse to water ...). Also, most of the networks are starting to provide their content, via streaming, from their web sites. The way they do it is to provide the entire show, with the commercials "baked in" and with fast forward disabled, so you have to watch the commercials. It is a no-brainer for the networks because it is a way for them to increase their ad revenue because they can prove, without AC Nielsen's involvement, exactly how much of each episode someone watched, and they can guarantee that the commercial was shown (no fast-forward, like we all do on our DVRs).

Thus, he'll be able to watch shows that he might have missed, several weeks after they aired.

[Aldbaran]

That does sound like good news, but it doesn't appear that my dad is interested in trying anything new. I told him about how he could have more than what he has now for around $48 a month instead of paying his current $70 for cable. He's not the least bit interested. I guess he'd rather continue paying more and getting less for it. Sometimes I wonder why I bother trying to help if he refuses to be helped.

As someone who is now in the senior citizen category (ugh!), I see quite a range of attitudes and acceptance of this newer media technology among my peers, including those in assisted living. While some have barely gotten beyond the B&W TV without a remote (which is all I had until the mid 1980s), most are completely "plugged in" to the Internet, and absolutely love email (can't live without it, actually). They generally enjoy playing the video clips their grandchildren send to them, even though they might have no idea how to do anything other than press the "play" button.

Bottom line: keep pushing to get that TV connected to the Internet. Even if he doesn't subscribe to a service, just being able to watch the free content should be very interesting, once he's experienced it (you'll have to lead the horse to water ...). Also, most of the networks are starting to provide their content, via streaming, from their web sites. The way they do it is to provide the entire show, with the commercials "baked in" and with fast forward disabled, so you have to watch the commercials. It is a no-brainer for the networks because it is a way for them to increase their ad revenue because they can prove, without AC Nielsen's involvement, exactly how much of each episode someone watched, and they can guarantee that the commercial was shown (no fast-forward, like we all do on our DVRs).

Thus, he'll be able to watch shows that he might have missed, several weeks after they aired.

I've actually heard news stories where they say that the biggest surge in internet use is seniors, many of which are in nursing homes and assisted living facilities because it helps them to stay in touch with friends and family rather than feeling so isolated and alone. Sure, I could even get internet hooked up to his TV, but judging from past experience, he would ignore its presence. I've given him other things that I thought would improve his life, but they just wound up being stored away somewhere. I even offered to sell his old receiver online, but he won't even let me do that. Now it just sits with all the other things that aren't being used anymore. I found an ad for the exact same model someone sold for $89 just last year. At the very least though, I'm able to save things I find on the internet to a flash drive that I plug into his TV and show him. I figured out how to download 4K content from Youtube to show him. At least that takes full advantage of the TV's abilities.