Has anyone ever used it? I'm moving to KY and won't have FSMW. I looked at the "blackout detector" and it looks like Preds and Blue Jackets games are all that will be blacked out for me.

They don't have a price up for the season as of right now though and I can't seem to find it anywhere--does anyone know what the price is for the season, if it includes the playoffs, and how reliable the service is.

I wasn't sure if this was too off topic for the main forum, if it is my apologies

I've been using it for every game that isn't on NBC for the past 5-10 years. For the last season, mlb.tv took over the app mid season. It's been rock solid for me. I watch it through the ps4 or on my phone. I have a solid internet connection. It cost a little over 100 bucks for the season if I remember correctly. All in all I'd recommend it. No issues in Oregon.

Edit: After thinking about this for a bit, the only downside for me would be the playoffs. If you don't have access to cable T.V. to switch to NBCSports for the playoffs, you are shit out of luck. For now, I have cable. That could change as my patience runs thin with comcast.

rudy4u51 wrote:I've been using it for every game that isn't on NBC for the past 5-10 years. For the last season, mlb.tv took over the app mid season. It's been rock solid for me. I watch it through the ps4 or on my phone. I have a solid internet connection. It cost a little over 100 bucks for the season if I remember correctly. All in all I'd recommend it. No issues in Oregon.

Edit: After thinking about this for a bit, the only downside for me would be the playoffs. If you don't have access to cable T.V. to switch to NBCSports for the playoffs, you are shit out of luck. For now, I have cable. That could change as my patience runs thin with comcast.

Yeah, I'll be streaming from a Roku device which has worked okay for Netflix with a slow ATT connection, so I imagine it'll be fine with the faster internet I will have in KY. Thanks for the feedback on it

I use it as well. I have found it works better on my ps4 than roku, but certainly fine with the roku. It definitely improved after mlb.TV took over.

Clearly hockeystreams died mid season for me last year, and I am antenna here in the NWA for any TV that is not IP based. Considering NHL.TV, and signing up for NBCsports (cable package) for 3-4 months (around the PO's). Based on my blackout location I will miss Dallas games.

I used it last year, and it worked great on my ps4. This year I have PS Vue, which is working out since they added fox sports midwest. I still might get nhl.tv so I can watch other teams.

Anyways I think it is worth it, and if you get a vpn like unblock us then you can get local games.

Thanks all. Does the package include playoffs or does that have to be purchased separately?

It includes playoffs that aren't on a national broadcast. So yes it does show playoff games but at the same time not really.

Doug Glatt wrote:It includes playoffs that aren't on a national broadcast. So yes it does show playoff games but at the same time not really.

Ah. Wasn't thinking about how most of playoffs are on one of the NBC networks. Thanks

Love it. Keeps me in tune here in Florida

Doug Glatt wrote:It includes playoffs that aren't on a national broadcast. So yes it does show playoff games but at the same time not really.

That is good, all I saw last year were the NBC National broadcasts on terrestrial.

For advance planning, here is the Blues' national TV schedule for 2016-17.

It appears that if you have Fox Sports GO and are a customer of a pay TV-provider you will now be able to live stream Fox Sports telecasts. I guess this only applies for in market games though.

https://www.nhl.com/news/fox-sports-go- ... -281230000

"NEW YORK - FOX Sports Regional Networks will begin live streaming local NHL® telecasts beginning with the upcoming 2016-17 season, the National Hockey League (NHL) and FOX Sports announced today.

As part of a new multi-year agreement, NHL games televised on FOX Sports Regional Networks (RSNs) will be available for live streaming on FOX Sports GO to customers of participating pay-TV providers.

The agreement also allows distributors, including new streaming services, to deliver NHL games via their digital platforms as part of their carriage of the Fox RSNs.

"We are pleased that hockey fans that subscribe to FOX Sports Regional Networks will now have more ways to follow their favorite NHL teams," said David M. Proper, NHL Executive Vice President of Media Distribution and Strategy / Business Affairs. "We believe increasing accessibility to NHL games benefits not only fans, but the League and its partners."

"We see in-market streaming as a valuable extension of the customers' pay-TV subscription," said Jeff Krolik, President, FOX Sports Regional Networks. "We're happy to partner with the NHL to bring in-market streaming to hockey fans, and we look forward to collaborating with the league on this effort."

FOX Sports GO, the live streaming platform that showcases more than 3,000 events a year, is currently available for iOS, Android, Android TV, Fire tablets and Fire phones, select Windows devices, and online at FOXSportsGO.com. Fans can download the mobile app for free from the iTunes App Store, Google Play, Amazon App Store and Windows Store. FOX Sports GO is now available to more than 95 million pay-TV customers across the U.S.

FOX Sports Regional Networks have local media rights partnerships with 12 NHL teams, including the Anaheim Ducks, Arizona Coyotes, Carolina Hurricanes, Columbus Blue Jackets, Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers, Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, St. Louis Blues, and Tampa Bay Lightning. During the 2015-16 season, Fox RSNs televised more than 900 NHL games."

Cheap way to get nhl on nbc is an hd antenna hooked straight to ur tv and pulls over the air waves.

Now granted, weather, location of antenna etc play a role, but if you have ideal conditions its always free

Ozzies09tc wrote:Cheap way to get nhl on nbc is an hd antenna hooked straight to ur tv and pulls over the air waves.

Now granted, weather, location of antenna etc play a role, but if you have ideal conditions its always free

Best $50 I spent in parts. Too bad I have the signal bouncing 2-3 times before it gets here.

Cotton McKnight wrote:

Ozzies09tc wrote:Cheap way to get nhl on nbc is an hd antenna hooked straight to ur tv and pulls over the air waves.

Now granted, weather, location of antenna etc play a role, but if you have ideal conditions its always free

Best $50 I spent in parts. Too bad I have the signal bouncing 2-3 times before it gets here.

After it bouncing, how does the picture look? Is it a steady hd stream?

(ive never had one i just know of them)

Ozzies09tc wrote:

Cotton McKnight wrote:

Ozzies09tc wrote:Cheap way to get nhl on nbc is an hd antenna hooked straight to ur tv and pulls over the air waves.

Now granted, weather, location of antenna etc play a role, but if you have ideal conditions its always free

Best $50 I spent in parts. Too bad I have the signal bouncing 2-3 times before it gets here.

After it bouncing, how does the picture look? Is it a steady hd stream?

(ive never had one i just know of them)

When I cut the cable, I ordered a 50 mile range hd antenna from Amazon,(1byone brand)$29.99 and it works very well. I've just got mine sitting on the tv stand, leaning against the wall behind the tv, and the hd is as good, or better than I was getting from satellite. It does take a little experimenting to find the best place, where the signal holds strong. An inch or two either way can make a big difference. Unless you live close to the transmitters you are interested in, I'd definitely recommend buying an antenna with a signal amplifier. I was so pleased with mine, that I bought a second one for the tv my granddaughters use when they come to visit. (probably could have just used a splitter and another coax cable on the first antenna, but for the difference in price, I didn't want to take a chance on the signal degrading.

Wow.

Thats an amazing review for $30!

Nfl and nhl playoffs in hd for free... Damn

barnburner wrote:When I cut the cable, I ordered a 50 mile range hd antenna from Amazon,(1byone brand)$29.99 and it works very well. I've just got mine sitting on the tv stand, leaning against the wall behind the tv, and the hd is as good, or better than I was getting from satellite. It does take a little experimenting to find the best place, where the signal holds strong. An inch or two either way can make a big difference. Unless you live close to the transmitters you are interested in, I'd definitely recommend buying an antenna with a signal amplifier. I was so pleased with mine, that I bought a second one for the tv my granddaughters use when they come to visit. (probably could have just used a splitter and another coax cable on the first antenna, but for the difference in price, I didn't want to take a chance on the signal degrading.)

You were right to invest in a separate antenna. Under what could be marginal signal strength conditions at your location (due to distances from transmitters & terrestrial obstructions & local noise sources), the extra 3 dB loss in the splitter could be the difference between receiving the video & audio signals and getting nothing on the grandkids' TV. The splitter would also affect the signal integrity to your primary TV. There's not as much margin with digital signals as there used to be in "my day" of analog television.

Also be aware that having a signal amplifier built into a relatively cheap HD antenna (and in some high-end units) is just as likely to degrade signal integrity as it is to boost it. Off-nominal matching with the antenna elements and with the signal output to the TV can negate the signal amplification. So maybe I'm old school, but I'm inclined to pay for basic digital functionality and leave the tweaking to antenna placement & having my wife hold her left arm straight up (with an occasional bending of her left leg) when she watches her cop shows.

I'm thinking of getting an antenna because if you get a good signal the quality should be great. All OTA, cable and satellite are compressed to some degree, but OTA doesn't compress nearly as much as cable and satellite. That's why you get the better picture.

Doug Glatt wrote:I'm thinking of getting an antenna because if you get a good signal the quality should be great. All OTA, cable and satellite are compressed to some degree, but OTA doesn't compress nearly as much as cable and satellite. That's why you get the better picture.

Yeah, I've read the same thing, and I truly believe I'm getting a sharper and clearer hd picture than I was getting from my provider. It's just a matter of finding the best location for the antenna, then when you're satisfied, do another scan for channels.

JMC-STL wrote:

barnburner wrote:When I cut the cable, I ordered a 50 mile range hd antenna from Amazon,(1byone brand)$29.99 and it works very well. I've just got mine sitting on the tv stand, leaning against the wall behind the tv, and the hd is as good, or better than I was getting from satellite. It does take a little experimenting to find the best place, where the signal holds strong. An inch or two either way can make a big difference. Unless you live close to the transmitters you are interested in, I'd definitely recommend buying an antenna with a signal amplifier. I was so pleased with mine, that I bought a second one for the tv my granddaughters use when they come to visit. (probably could have just used a splitter and another coax cable on the first antenna, but for the difference in price, I didn't want to take a chance on the signal degrading.)

You were right to invest in a separate antenna. Under what could be marginal signal strength conditions at your location (due to distances from transmitters & terrestrial obstructions & local noise sources), the extra 3 dB loss in the splitter could be the difference between receiving the video & audio signals and getting nothing on the grandkids' TV. The splitter would also affect the signal integrity to your primary TV. There's not as much margin with digital signals as there used to be in "my day" of analog television.

Also be aware that having a signal amplifier built into a relatively cheap HD antenna (and in some high-end units) is just as likely to degrade signal integrity as it is to boost it. Off-nominal matching with the antenna elements and with the signal output to the TV can negate the signal amplification. So maybe I'm old school, but I'm inclined to pay for basic digital functionality and leave the tweaking to antenna placement & having my wife hold her left arm straight up (with an occasional bending of her left leg) when she watches her cop shows.

I tested both antennas without the amplifier first. I'm sure it varies with location, but in my case, both antennas work better with the amplifier.

JMC-STL wrote:

barnburner wrote:When I cut the cable, I ordered a 50 mile range hd antenna from Amazon,(1byone brand)$29.99 and it works very well. I've just got mine sitting on the tv stand, leaning against the wall behind the tv, and the hd is as good, or better than I was getting from satellite. It does take a little experimenting to find the best place, where the signal holds strong. An inch or two either way can make a big difference. Unless you live close to the transmitters you are interested in, I'd definitely recommend buying an antenna with a signal amplifier. I was so pleased with mine, that I bought a second one for the tv my granddaughters use when they come to visit. (probably could have just used a splitter and another coax cable on the first antenna, but for the difference in price, I didn't want to take a chance on the signal degrading.)

You were right to invest in a separate antenna. Under what could be marginal signal strength conditions at your location (due to distances from transmitters & terrestrial obstructions & local noise sources), the extra 3 dB loss in the splitter could be the difference between receiving the video & audio signals and getting nothing on the grandkids' TV. The splitter would also affect the signal integrity to your primary TV. There's not as much margin with digital signals as there used to be in "my day" of analog television.

Also be aware that having a signal amplifier built into a relatively cheap HD antenna (and in some high-end units) is just as likely to degrade signal integrity as it is to boost it. Off-nominal matching with the antenna elements and with the signal output to the TV can negate the signal amplification. So maybe I'm old school, but I'm inclined to pay for basic digital functionality and leave the tweaking to antenna placement & having my wife hold her left arm straight up (with an occasional bending of her left leg) when she watches her cop shows.

I have 10 or 12 way powered splitter... Would this allow multiple tv's for 1 antenna with good signal?

Ozzies09tc wrote: I have 10 or 12 way powered splitter... Would this allow multiple tv's for 1 antenna with good signal?

I'm no electronics expert, but I would be leery. It's really hard to say because the results would be dependent on a lot of factors. However, if you already have the splitter and coax, you could try it. If it don't work, and you don't want to invest in more antennas, you could always return to Amazon, or whatever retailer you bought from. (checking their return policy of course)

Ozzies09tc wrote:I have 10 or 12 way powered splitter... Would this allow multiple tv's for 1 antenna with good signal?

Every "split" reduces the TV signal passed through it by a minimum of 3 dB (i.e., cuts the signal power in half), but as barnburner noted: "the results would be dependent on a lot of factors." Trial and error is a big part of human evolution, so go for it.