Connect with us

Technology

The best live TV streaming services to cut cable in 2024

Published

on

The best live TV streaming services to cut cable in 2024

Compared to most cable plans, live TV streaming subscriptions continue to be more affordable — though the gap is narrowing. Since we first published this guide over a year ago, every paid plan we cover (except Sling) has raised its base price. Still, streaming is great for cord-cutters as it doesn’t come with a contract and the only equipment required is an internet connection and your smart TV (or a dumb one with a streaming device).

Live TV streaming also lets you catch live content like news broadcasts and sports events, plus linear “cable” channels (USA, TNT, Bravo). But the gap is narrowing here too: Many traditional streaming platforms now include live content from their parent companies: ABC channels on Hulu, NBC content on Peacock, CNN on Max and so on. But for the widest selection, a live TV streaming service is still your best bet. I tried out the top players to determine which is the best live TV streaming service out there in terms of price, usability and coverage.

YouTube TV

Advertisement

Monthly price: $73/mo. and up | Local channels: Yes | Sports coverage: National, local, international | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: Yes (with an add-on) | Total channels: 100+ (base plan) | DVR limits: Unlimited, 9 mo. expiration | Profiles per account: 6 | Simultaneous at-home streams: 3 | Picture-in-picture: Yes (mobile and computer) | Multiview: Yes (select programming) | Contract: No | Free trial: Yes (length varies)

Google’s option makes a strong case for delivering the best streaming service for live TV. Compared to our top pick for sports, YouTube TV covers major and minor teams, regional games and national matchups almost as well. It gives you clear navigation, a great search function, unlimited DVR and broad network coverage. It’s not quite as affordable as it once was, as YouTube recently raised the price to $73 per month – and it’s even more financially precarious if you’re not great at resisting temptation.

Upon signup, you’re presented with nearly 50 different add-ons, including 4K resolution, premium channels and themed packages. Even if you fight the urge to roll Max, Shudder and AcornTV into the mix at signup, the enticement remains as it’s dangerously easy to add more to your subscription. … when I searched for a program on a network I didn’t have, I was prompted to add it. And of course, you can also rent or buy movies that aren’t currently showing on any channels, just like you can via YouTube. While it’s convenient to be able to order up anything I might want on a whim, I could easily see this pushing one’s bill far above Google’s listed $73 per month.

Still, it’s nice to have all your entertainment in one place. And if you only want the add-ons, you can actually subscribe to most of the standalone networks without paying for the base plan. Either way, you get a familiar user experience, with navigation you’ll recognize if you’ve spent any time on regular ol’ YouTube. Unsurprisingly, Google’s search function was the best of the bunch, finding the shows and games I searched for quickly and giving me clear choices for how to watch and record.

Advertisement

At signup, you’ll also pick the shows, networks and teams you like, which are added to your library. YouTube TV then automatically records them. You get unlimited cloud DVR space (though recordings expire after nine months) and it’s dead simple to add programming to your library. Like a real cable experience, YouTube TV autoplays your last-watched program upon startup by default, but it was the only service that allowed me to turn that feature off by heading to the settings.

Searching for and recording an upcoming game was easy. Once the game was recorded, I had to hunt a little to find it in my library (turns out single games are listed under the Events heading, not Sports). But after that, playback was simple and included a fascinating extra feature: You can either play a recorded game from the beginning or hit Watch Key Plays. The latter gives you between 12 and 20 highlight snippets, each about 10 seconds long. It focuses on the most impressive shots in an NBA bout and includes every goal in an MLS matchup. The feature was available for NCAA basketball and in-season major American leagues (hockey, soccer and basketball at the time of testing). Foreign and more minor games didn’t have the feature.

Sports fans will also appreciate the new multiview feature that YouTube TV added last year that lets you pick up to four sports, news and weather channels from a select list and view them all at the same time on your screen. If you find yourself constantly flipping back and forth between games, this could save you some hassle.

YouTube TV also gives you the most in-app settings. You can add parental controls to a profile or pull up a stats menu that shows your buffer health and connection speeds. You can lower playback resolution for slow connections and even send feedback to YouTube. It was also the best at integrating VOD and live programming. For example, when I searched for a show that happened to be playing live, a red badge in the corner of the show’s image let me know it was on right then. I know it makes no difference whether I watch an on-demand recording or a live show, but I like the imagined sense of community knowing someone else might be watching this episode of Portlandia too.

Advertisement
Pros
  • Intuitive and smooth interface
  • Accurate search functions
  • Cool multiview feature
  • Good coverage of sports, news and linear programming networks
Cons
  • Very easy to overspend on extras
  • The price keeps going up

$73 at YouTube TV

Fubo

Monthly price: $80/mo. and up | Local channels: Yes | Sports coverage: National, local, international | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: Yes (mid- and high-tier plans) | Total channels: 204 (base plan) | DVR limits: Unlimited | Profiles per account: 6 | Simultaneous at-home streams: 10 | Picture-in-picture: Yes (mobile and computer) | Multiview: Yes (select programming, Apple TV) | Contract: No | Free trial: Yes (7 days)

Advertisement

If you want to stream live sports, you should probably opt for Fubo. When you first sign up, it asks which teams you follow across all kinds of associations. Pick teams from in-season leagues and you’ll quickly have DVR content to watch. That’s because Fubo records every game your chosen teams play as long as it’s aired on a supported channel – and its sports coverage is vast.

I tested out the top-tier, $110-per-month Deluxe package and the guide said there were 118 sports networks to choose from. (The Elite plan, which is $10 less per month, lacks the MGM+ and International Sports add-ons.) In addition to the usual suspects from ESPN, Fox, NBC and CBS, you can watch motorsports, international leagues, adventure sports and even poker. Add-ons give you NBA TV, NHL Network, NFL Red Zone and MLB Network. And if you need access to all one thousand games the NBA plays in a season, you can add the NBA League Pass to your lineup for $17 per month. Fubo even has its own sports channels.

Yes, the coverage is comprehensive, but Fubo also made finding and recording specific games very easy. Searching for an upcoming game was simple, as was sifting through the ample amount of recorded games I ended up with. I particularly liked FanView for live games, which inserts the video into a smaller window and surrounds that window with continually updating stats plus a clickable list of other games currently airing. But, unfortunately, the feature isn’t currently available. Hopefully Fubo will bring it back, as it was a differentiating perk for the service.  

Fubo has made an obvious effort to win at sports, but recently it’s tried to deliver on the live TV experience as well. Based on what I’ve seen so far, it’s certainly made strides. The guide was impressive in the number of ways it let you organize live TV, yet everything felt clean and uncluttered. The Home, Sports, Shows and Movies pages were filled with recommendations and many iterations of categories, with almost all suggestions being live TV.

Advertisement

Where Fubo falls short is in VOD access and DVR playback. It wasn’t the best at finding the shows I searched for, and navigating available VOD content wasn’t as breezy as browsing through live programming. The lack of a pop-up preview window as you fast forward or rewind through recordings makes it tough to gauge where you are in a show. As for price, Fubo ties with DirecTV Stream for the most expensive base package at $80. But if you need all the sports – and want some nicely organized live TV during the few moments when there’s not a game on – this is the way to go.

Pros
  • Best coverage of sports networks
  • Automatically records your favorite teams
  • Informative FanView feature
  • Uncluttered live TV interface
Cons
  • DVR and VOD experience is inferior to the live component

$80 at Fubo

Hulu

Advertisement

Monthly price: $77/mo. and up | Local channels: Yes | Sports coverage: National, local, international | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: No | Total channels: 95+ (base plan) | DVR limits: Unlimited (9 mo. expiration) | Profiles per account: 6 | Simultaneous at-home streams: 2 | Picture-in-picture: Yes (mobile and computer) | Multiview: No | Contract: No | Free trial: Yes (3 days)

After YouTube TV went up to $73 per month, Hulu + Live TV shot to $77. But if you already or plan to subscribe to the regular Hulu app and/or Disney+, Hulu’s live component still makes better financial sense. It gives you live TV streaming, plus all the content from Hulu, ESPN+ and Disney+, much of which you can’t get elsewhere. Note that $77 gets you the content with ads — for ad-free Disney+ and Hulu components, it’s $90 monthly.

Hulu + Live TV carries your local affiliates and most of the top cable channels. For sports, you get all available ESPN iterations plus FS1, FS2, TBS, USA, TNT, NBC Golf and the NFL Network. You can also add on premium VOD channels like Max and Showtime, and it’s the only provider that includes Disney+ at no extra cost.

Navigation isn’t as smooth as most of the other options — as I used Hulu + Live TV, it felt like the live component had been shoehorned into the standard Hulu app. But for viewers who are already comfortable with (and paying for) Hulu and Disney+, this might be the best pick for your live TV subscription.

Advertisement
Pros
  • Includes Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN+ progrmming

$77 at Hulu

DirecTV

Monthly price: $80/mo. and up | Local channels: Yes | Sports coverage: National, local, international | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: Yes (three channels) | Total channels: 90+ (base plan) | DVR limits: Unlimited (9-month expiration, maximum of 30 episodes per series) | Profiles per account: 1 | Simultaneous at-home streams: Unlimited | Picture-in-picture: Yes (mobile and computer) | Multiview: No | Contract: No | Free trial: Yes (5 days)

Advertisement

DirecTV Stream gives you the most cable-like experience — unsurprising considering the AT&T-owned company also does straight cable subscriptions. But instead of a contract that’s unreasonably hard to cancel, DirecTV Stream lets you cancel whenever you want. The service also brings back the serendipity of flipping from one channel to the “next” (yes, DirecTV Stream numbers its channels) with your remote just like the good old days.

I counted nearly all of the most popular cable networks and you can add multiple packages and premiums like Showtime, Starz, AMC+ and Discovery+. You can also include Max, just like on YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV, but DirecTV is the only one I tried that also lets you get Peacock. Of course, you can just add those apps separately to your smart TV, but for anyone who wants to approximate the all-in-one convenience of cable, it’s a nice perk.

When I fired up DirecTV Stream, whichever network I’d watched last automatically started playing. It continued when I switched over to the guide or other menu pages. I’m used to the quieter experience of traditional streaming apps (after turning off autoplay), so I found that crazy making, but it might not bother everyone.

The navigation didn’t feel intuitive, partly because the menu options overlay the currently playing show and because there are so many ways to browse, access and control live, recorded and on-demand content. The search function found the shows and movies I searched for and accurately presented the upcoming games I wanted just from typing in one of the teams.

Advertisement

You can’t add new channels or packages through the app, which might be a relief to anyone worried about succumbing to subscription overload. Everyone else may just find it annoying.

Pros
  • Cable-like experience without a contract
  • Broad channel coverage
Cons
  • Somewhat complicated interface

$80 at DirecTV

Sling TV

Advertisement

Monthly price: $40/mo. and up | Local channels: Yes (ABC, FOX, NBC in 20 markets) | Sports coverage: National, local | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: Yes (in 16 markets) | Total channels: 34 or 44 (base plans) | DVR limits: 50 hrs, no expiration | Profiles per account: 4 | Simultaneous at-home streams: 1 (Orange), 3 (Blue) | Picture-in-picture: Yes (mobile and computer) | Multiview: No | Contract: No | Free trial: No

To me, the idea of spending time fine-tuning channel choices sounds exhausting. But if you’re the type who wants to get exactly what you want without paying for too much of what you don’t, Sling TV may be your best bet. It breaks its base plan into two packages, Blue and Orange, with different channels on each. Blue, which costs $45 a month, carries a larger number of networks, while Orange seems to have spent its lineup dollars on ESPN and ESPN 2. But at $40 monthly, Sling Orange is the cheapest way to get those two sports outlets.

After picking a plan, you can choose from a stable of add-on packages, with monthly prices ranging from $6 to $11. These include blocks of sports or lifestyle channels, kid-friendly fare, the Discovery+ bundle and a news package. There are 41 individual premium offerings, including Showtime, Starz, MGM+, Shudder and Acorn, which go for between $2 and $10 per month. Sling has pay-per-view movies, too.

As far as local coverage, Sling Blue grants access to ABC, Fox and NBC local affiliates in about 20 of the larger US markets including Los Angeles, Seattle, Dallas, NYC, Miami and DC. ABC coverage began in March 2023. That raised the price of Sling Blue in supported markets from $40 to $45. For people not in those areas (or who opt for Orange) Sling is currently running a promotion for a free HD antenna to catch local stations. 

Advertisement

In about 16 markets, Sling now offers select sports in 4K. You’ll need a Roku or Amazon Fire TV device that supports 4K (and a compatible TV) but for no extra charge, you’ll get to watch events like the Paris Olympics, some college and pro football on FS1 and ESPN, and more. 

Sling’s navigation is speedy and the interface is nicely organized, putting an emphasis on what you like to watch, with recommendations that are pretty accurate. The UI also makes the add-ons you’ve chosen easy to find. In my tests, though, the app froze a number of times as I navigated. While most services froze once or twice, it happened enough times with Sling to frustrate me. I had to force quit or back out of the app and start over five or six times during the three weeks of testing. Compared to others, Sling’s DVR allowance is on the stingy side, only giving you 50 hours of recordings, though they won’t expire. You can pay for more DVR storage, but that will increase your overall costs.

I tried not to wander too far off-path during testing, but I feel it’s my duty to inform you that Sling has an Elvis channel, a Bob Ross channel and ALF TV (yes, an entire station devoted to the ‘80s sitcom starring a puppet). There’s also a Dog TV network intended to be played for your dogs when you leave the house, which you can add to Sling or get as a standalone app.

Advertisement
Pros
  • More affordable than most live services
  • Orange plan is the cheapest way to get ESPN
  • Highly customizable packages
Cons
  • Only 50 hours of DVR allowance
  • Local channels only in major metro areas

$40 at Sling TV

Philo

Monthly price: $28/mo. and up | Local channels: No | Sports coverage: No | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: No | Total channels: 70+ (base plan) | DVR limits: Unlimited, 1 yr. expiration | Profiles per account: 10 | Simultaneous at-home streams: 3 | Picture-in-picture: Yes (mobile and computer) | Multiview: No | Contract: No | Free trial: Yes (7 days)

Philo held out at $25 monthly for a few years but recently increased to $28 — though they did add AMC+ to the channel lineup to lessen the blow (and it has some good shows!). Despite the bump, it’s still one of the cheapest ways to get a cordless live TV experience. Philo’s free offerings recently increased as well, bumping up to . The biggest caveat is that you won’t find any local stations or sports programming on it. If that’s not an issue, Philo is great, with a clean, streamlined interface and generous DVR limits.

Advertisement

I’m a fan of minimalist design, so I appreciated the way Philo presented its menus and guide. There are just four top navigation headings: Home, Guide, Saved and Search. And instead of the usual guide layout that stretches out or shortens a show’s listing to represent its air time, Philo’s guide features monospaced squares in chronological order with the duration of the program inside the square. Another nice touch is when you navigate to a square, it fills with a live video of the show or movie.

Philo doesn’t limit the amount of programming you can DVR and lets you keep recordings for a full year, which is more than the nine months other providers allow. Like all live TV streamers, Philo won’t let you fast forward VOD programming. If skipping commercials is important to you, I recommend taking advantage of that unlimited DVR policy and hitting “Save” on any show or movie you think you may want to watch, then fast forwarding it on playback (you can do this with all the services we tried).

As far as channels, Philo covers many of the top cable networks, with notable exceptions including Fox News, CNN, ESPN and MSNBC. Anyone looking for great news coverage should look elsewhere anyway, but the lack of a few must-have entertainment outlets like Bravo and Freeform was a little disappointing.

Advertisement
Pros
  • Affordable
  • Minimalist and easy interface
  • Unlimited DVR allowance that lasts for a year
Cons
  • No sports or local access
  • Limited news coverage

$25 at Philo

Back to top

Many standard streaming apps have added live components to their lineups. You’re paying for the service, so it’s not technically “free,” but you can get a dose of live TV without spending more than necessary. Peacock includes some regional NBC stations, which also includes access to the Olympic Games. Paramount+ subscribers can watch on-air CBS programming. The standard Hulu app has a live ABC news channel and Max now includes a live CNN outlet with its service.

Amazon Prime Video contains a live TV tab, as does the Fire TV interface. And, if you use Roku or Samsung as your smart OS of choice, their built-in, proprietary services include hundreds of live channels at no extra cost. Plus there are free apps from PBS — even NASA has a free streaming service.

But if you want a full suite of live TV networks, and don’t want to sign up for any paid service, there are a number of free ad-supported TV services that have live TV. Here’s the best of what we tried:

Advertisement

Tubi

Local channels: A few | Sports coverage: Replays and shows about sports | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: No | Total channels: 260 | Profiles per account: 1 | Picture-in-picture: No | Multiview: No | Contract: No 

You don’t need to give Tubi any of your information to start watching live content. In many areas, it’ll grant access to your local ABC and Fox station and also includes the news-stream channels that other similar services carry, like NBC News Now, Fox Live Now and ABC News Live. Fox is Tubi’s parent company so you get picks like Fox Sports, Fox Soul and over a dozen regional Fox networks.

Advertisement

The live TV component lives within the Home menu and, from there, the stations are organized by category, making it easy to browse the more than 200 live channels. Navigation is speedy and, along with a good library of on-demand movies, shows and kids’ stuff, Tubi has a few regional news stations plus at least five regional Fox News stations.

Despite being billed as a live TV service, TUBI has a wide range of VOD movies and series. Whenever I flipped on the app, there were at least a few movies I was interested in. If you like the idea of fine-tuned browsing, you’ll probably appreciate Tubi’s Categories tab, which includes such hyper-specific topics as “shonen anime,” “vampire romance,” “black independent cinema” and “heist films.” In fact, I prefer Tubi’s on-demand experience over its live TV competency — the live TV guide only stays open for 10 seconds if you’re not actively clicking around and, like PlutoTV, your current show keeps playing as you browse the guide.

Pros
Advertisement
  • Free with no sign-in required
  • Shows some local Fox and ABC stations
  • Appealing on-demand content
  • Highly detailed categories sections for VOD
Cons
  • Channel guide disappears after 10 seconds
  • Current show continues playing as you browse

Free at Tubi

Plex

Local channels: No | Sports coverage: Replays and shows about sports | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: No | Total channels: 800+ | Profiles per account: 15 (with a free Plex Home acct) | Picture-in-picture: No | Multiview: No | Contract: No

I test lots of gadgets and services but only a few make their way into my off-hours life. Plex feels likely to be one of those rarities. The FAST service has around 800 live TV channels that are organized fairly granularly and you can have up to 15 profiles. You can also rent a good selection of new-release and popular older movies directly from the app and there’s even an integration with notable music streaming service Tidal.

But the reason I’ll keep using Plex is the search function. It not only lets you hunt for shows and movies on its own platform, it also tells you which other services are currently carrying a particular title. I searched for Glass Onion, Get Out, Buckaroo Banzai and Billy Eichner’s Bros and found out I could watch those movies with my subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video and Starz, respectively. Searching by an actor’s name, like Jamie Lee Curtis or Donald Glover, will give you a list of movies and shows they’ve been in. You can then find out that Halloween 1978 is available for free on Plex and Atlanta is included with a Hulu subscription.

Advertisement

It’s also quite easy to add any title to your Watchlist — together with the search feature, that could be a unifying way to organize your streaming aspirations. I checked every service Plex indicated for the titles I searched for and, so far, it’s been correct every time. My only real complaint is how painfully slow the search can be at times, but the results are spot-on.

So, yes, you can watch a linear stream of old episodes like the BBC’s The Office or NCIS:New Orleans for free, but you can also find out which streamer is currently playing Uncut Gems (it’s Max).

Pros
Advertisement
  • Good selection of free live channels
  • Helpful and accurate search for any title
  • Detailed organization that’s not overly complicated

Free at Plex

Sling

Local channels: A few | Sports coverage: Replays and shows about sports | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: No | Total channels: 400+ | Profiles per account: 4 (with sign-up) | Picture-in-picture: Yes | Multiview: No | Contract: No

When I first tried out Freestream, it was tough to find out where the free content was. It uses the same app as the paid Sling service, and I only found the prompt to watch for free when I was about to close the app. It has since become far easier to find the gratis option and, once you do, you get access to over 400 channels of free stuff, including a good deal of national and global news networks, such as BBC News, CBS News 24/7, USA Today, ABC News Live and Bloomberg. Yes, many of these are already available for free at their respective websites, but it’s nice to have a one-stop location to browse them all.

Since the last time I tried Sling’s free service, the navigation has improved greatly. Where once there were just a few organizational options, now you’ll find categories for sports, movies, comedies, true crime, kids, documentaries, science and nature, classic TV and more. When you flip back to the guide, what you’re watching pops into a picture-in-picture window — but if you don’t like that, it’s easy to close it so you can browse in peace.

Advertisement
Pros
  • Good national news network selection
  • Nicely organized interface
  • Your current show becomes a pop-out as you browse and is easily closed
Cons
  • Often asks you to sign up for paid Sling plans

Free at Sling

Amazon

Local channels: A few | Sports coverage: Replays and shows about sports | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: No | Total channels: 400+ | Profiles per account: 1 | Picture-in-picture: No | Multiview: No | Contract: No

Advertisement

It was first called IMDbTV, but Amazon changed the name of its free streaming option to Freevee to better hint at its price. What’s available is pretty similar to the Live TV menu option you’ll find within the Prime Video app — in fact, the interface on that app is actually better organized, with listings by category. Freevee’s live TV menu is just a long, single list of channels. Prime’s version is speedier, too.

However, Freevee is, true to its name, completely free. You don’t even have to sign in, though you’ll be prompted to do so when you first open the app (just select “Watch as a guest” in the lower corner to bypass that). There are currently around 400 channels with news networks like ABC News Live, Fox Live Now and NBC News Now. Sports showcases include the MLB Channel, NBC Sports and Fubo Sports. Tons of reality, true crime and current and classic TV avenues round out the offerings. 

For original content that you can’t watch elsewhere, you not only get Freevee’s own shows like Jury Duty, but you can also watch select episodes of Prime shows like Fallout and Outer Range. Plus there are plenty of live channels arranged around specific classic shows including Saved by the Bell, Sailor Moon, The Addams Family and Murder, She Wrote.

It’s possible Freevee has the most regional news channels of any other FAST service too, but it’s almost impossible to find them without scrolling endlessly through the guide. You can’t search for them and there’s no way to organize the channels by category as you can with the live TV section in the Prime Video app (which almost gives you the impression Amazon would rather you just pay for the membership). But while flipping through the guide, I saw NBC Chicago, Philadelphia and New York affiliates, Fox in Milwaukee, LA and Tampa Bay, and the Bay Area’s ABC station.

Advertisement
Pros
  • Lets you watch a selection of Prime Video content
  • Lots of regional stations
Cons
  • Hardly any organization to the channels

Free at Amazon

Pluto TV

Local channels: A few | Sports coverage: Replays and shows about sports | On-demand: Yes | 4K live streams: No | Total channels: 250+ | Profiles per account: 1 | Picture-in-picture: No | Multiview: No | Contract: No

Advertisement

Pluto TV is granularly organized, separating out nearly two dozen categories for its live content — including local news, kids, sports, daytime TV along with more specific topics like anime, competition reality, and history/science. The service also has a slew of its own stations such as Pluto Sports, Pluto News, Pluto True Crime and Pluto Star Trek.

Actually, much of Pluto’s service is made up of content owned by its parent company, Paramount, who owns, in addition to Star Trek properties, CBS, Nickelodeon and MTV brands. Thanks to that affiliation, you’ll get access to a bunch of original content here. Regional news options are, however, limited to about a dozen CBS stations, but the live news-stream selection is pretty good and includes NBC News Live, BBC Headlines, Bloomberg Television, Cheddar News and others.

As for sports, you get CBS Sports HQ, a version of Fox Sports and league-specific sports shows from the NFL, MLB, and Golf Channels. Though, as with any free live TV streaming service, you won’t find much in the way of live games.

One thing I have to point out is that whatever you’re watching keeps playing when you browse the guide, and after searching the settings in the app and forums online, I could find no way to turn this off. If, like me, hearing your currently playing show natter on as you look for something else to watch drives you insane, you’ll have to hit mute.

Advertisement
Pros
  • Highly organized guide
  • Lots of Paramount-owned content
Cons
  • Your current show plays under the guide

Free at Pluto TV

Back to top

Streaming live TV is a lot like using Netflix. You get access through apps on your phone, tablet, smart TV or streaming device and the signal arrives over the internet. A faster and more stable connection tends to give you a better experience. Most live TV apps require you to sign up and pay via a web browser. After that, you can activate the app on all of your devices.

When I started testing these cord-cutting alternatives, I was struck by the price difference between live TV and a standard video streaming app. Where the latter cost between $5 and $20 per month, most live TV services hit the $80 mark and can go higher than $200 with additional perks, channel packages and premium extras. The higher starting price is mostly due to the cost of providing multiple networks — particularly sports and local stations. And, in the past year or so, every service except Sling has raised base plan prices.

Advertisement

Only two of the services I tried don’t include full local channel coverage for subscribers and one of those makes no effort to carry sports at all. That would be Philo and, as you might guess, it’s the cheapest. The next most affordable option, Sling, only carries three local stations — and only in larger markets — but it still manages to include some of the top sports channels.

When you sign up with any provider that handles local TV, you’ll enter your zip code, ensuring you get your area’s broadcast affiliates for ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC. Of course, you can also get those stations for free. Nearly all modern television sets support a radio frequency (RF) connection, also known as the coaxial port, which means if you buy an HD antenna, you’ll receive locally broadcast stations like ABC, CBS, PBS, FOX and NBC. And since the signal is digital, reception is much improved over the staticky rabbit-ears era.

One reality that spun my head was the sheer number and iterations of sports networks in existence. Trying to figure out which network will carry the match-up you want to see can be tricky. I found that Google makes it a little easier for sports fans by listing out upcoming games (just swap in NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL and so on in the search bar). When you click an event, the “TV & streaming” button will tell you which network is covering it.

That just leaves figuring out if your chosen service carries that regional sports network. Unfortunately, even with add-ons and extra packages, some providers simply don’t have certain channels in their lineups. It would take a lawyer to understand the ins and outs of streaming rights negotiations, and networks leave and return to live TV carriers all the time. That said, most major sporting events in the US are covered by ESPN, Fox Sports, TNT, USA and local affiliates.

Advertisement

I should also point out that traditional streaming services have started adding live sports to their lineups. Peacock carries live Premier League matches, Sunday Night Football games and aired the Olympic Games from Paris this summer. Thursday Night Football is on Amazon Prime and Christmas Day Football is coming to Netflix. Max (formerly HBO Max) now airs select, regular season games from the NHL, MLB, NCAA and NBA with a $10-per-month add-on. You can watch MLS games with an add-on through the Apple TV app, and Apple TV+ includes some MLB games. If you subscribe to Paramount Plus, you can see many of the matches you’d see on CBS Sports, including live NFL games.

Roku just added a free sports channel to its lineup. And a new upcoming sports streaming service called Venu is a joint venture between ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery and will cost $43 per month. Even taken all together, these options may not cover as much ground as live TV streamers, but they could scratch a small sports itch without too much added cost.

Dozens of linear programming networks were once only available with cable TV, like Bravo, BET, Food Network, HGTV, CNN, Lifetime, SYFY and MTV. If you only subscribe to, say, Netflix or Apple TV+, you won’t have access to those. But as with sports, standard streamers are starting to incorporate this content into their offerings. After the Warner Bros. merger, Max incorporated some content from HGTV, Discovery and TLC. Peacock has Bravo and Hallmark shows, and Paramount+ has material from Nickelodeon, MTV and Comedy Central.

Other channels like AMC+ have stand-alone apps. The Discovery+ app gives you 15 channels add-free for $9 per month (or with ads for $5 monthly). And a service called Frndly TV starts at a mere $7 per month and streams A&E, Lifetime, Game Show Network, Outdoor Channel and about 35 others. Of course, most live TV streaming options will deliver more sizable lists of cable networks, but just note that you may already be paying for some of them — and if all you need is a certain channel, you could get it cheaper by subscribing directly.

Advertisement

Most live TV subscriptions include access to a selection of video-on-demand (VOD) content, like you would get with a traditional streaming service. Much of this content is made up of the movies and TV series that have recently aired on your subscribed networks. This typically doesn’t cover live events and news programming, but I was able to watch specific episodes of ongoing shows like Top Chef or BET’s Diarra from Detroit. Just search the on-demand library for the program, pick an episode and hit play.

Partnerships, like Hulu’s relationship with Disney, and add-ons, such as bundling Max with your YouTube TV subscription or Starz with your Sling plan, will let you watch even larger libraries of on-demand content. But again, if VOD is all you’re after, paying for those networks directly instead of through a live TV plan will be far cheaper.

Every option I tried offers some cloud DVR storage without needing a separate physical device. You’ll either get unlimited storage for recordings that expires after nine months or a year, or you’ll get a set number of hours (between 50 and 1,000) that you can keep indefinitely. Typically, all you need to do is designate what ongoing TV series you want to record and the DVR component will do all the hard work of saving subsequent episodes for you to watch later. You can do the same thing with sports events.

Aside from being able to watch whenever it’s most convenient, you can also fast-forward through commercials in recorded content. In contrast, you can’t skip them on live TV or VOD.

Advertisement

Each plan gives you a certain number of simultaneous streams, aka how many screens can play content at the same time. And while most providers will let you travel with your subscription, there are usually location restrictions that require you to sign in from your home IP address periodically. Stream allowances range from one at a time to unlimited screens (or as many as your ISP’s bandwidth can handle). Some plans require add-ons to get more screens.

Most services also let you set up a few profiles so I was able to give different people in my family the ability to build their own watch histories and libraries, set their favorite channels and get individual recommendations.

Picture-in-picture (PiP) usually refers to shrinking a video window on a mobile device or computer browser so you can watch it while using other apps. Sling, YouTube TV, FuboTV, Philo, DirecTV Stream and Hulu + Live TV all have PiP modes on computers and mobile devices. Another feature, multiview, lets you view multiple live sports games at once on your TV screen. YouTube TV and FuboTV are the only live TV streamers that let you do this. With YouTube TV, you can select up to four views from a few preset selection of streams. FuboTV offers the same feature, but only if you’re using an Apple TV set top device.

Right now, just FuboTV, YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream offer 4K live streams — but with caveats. YouTube TV requires a $20-per-month add-on, after which you’ll only be able to watch certain live content in 4K. DirecTV Stream has three channels that show live 4K content — one with shows and original series, and two with occasional sporting events. You don’t have to pay extra for these but you do need to have either DirecTV’s Gemini receiver or a Roku device. FuboTV shows certain live events in 4K but access is limited to the Elite and Premier packages, not the base-level Pro plan. Of course, watching any 4K content requires equipment that can handle it: a 4K smart TV or 4K streaming device paired with a cable and screen that can handle 4K resolution.

Advertisement

Comparing price-to-offering ratios is a task for a spreadsheet. I… made three. The base plans range from $28 to $80 per month. From there, you can add packages, which are usually groups of live TV channels bundled by themes like news, sports, entertainment or international content. Premium VOD extras like Max, AMC+ and Starz are also available. Add-ons cost an extra $5 to $20 each per month and simply show up in the guide where you find the rest of your live TV. This is where streaming can quickly get expensive, pushing an $80 subscription to $200 monthly, depending on what you choose.

I also downloaded and tried out a few apps that offer free ad-supported TV (FAST) including Freevee, Tubi, PlutoTV and Sling Freestream. These let you drop in and watch a more limited selection of live networks at zero cost. Most don’t even require an email address, let alone a credit card. And if you have a Roku device, an Amazon Fire TV or Stick, a Samsung TV, a Chromecast device or a Google TV, you already have access to hundreds of live channels via the Roku Channel, the live tab in Fire TV, through the Samsung TV Plus app or through Google TV.

Back to top

When I begin testing for a guide, I research the most popular and well-reviewed players in the category and narrow down which are worth trying. For the paid plans, just six services dominate so I tried them all. There are considerably more free live TV contenders so I tested the four most popular. After getting accounts set up using my laptop, I downloaded the apps on a Samsung smart TV running the latest version of Tizen OS. I counted the local stations and regional sports coverage, and noted how many of last year’s top cable networks were available. I then weighed the prices, base packages and available add-ons.

Advertisement

I then looked at how the programming was organized in each app’s UI and judged how easy everything was to navigate, from the top navigation to the settings. To test the search function, I searched for the same few TV shows on BET, Food Network, HGTV and Comedy Central, since all six providers carry those channels. I noted how helpful the searches were and how quickly they got me to season 6, episode 13 of Home Town.

I used DVR to record entire series and single movies and watched VOD shows, making sure to test the pause and scan functions. On each service with sports, I searched for the same four upcoming NHL, NBA, MLS and NCAA basketball matches and used the record option to save the games and play them back a day or two later. Finally, I noted any extra perks or irritating quirks.

All live TV streaming services we’ve tested:

Back to top

Advertisement

Streaming simply refers to video content that is delivered to your screen over the internet. Live streaming can be split into two categories: linear programming and simultaneous transmission. That first one is similar to what you get with cable or broadcast TV, with channels that play a constant flow of movies and shows (sort of what TV looked like before Netflix). Simultaneous streaming lets you watch live events (like a basketball game) or a program (like the evening news) as they happen.

Standard streaming, the most popular example being Netflix, lets you pick what you want to watch from a menu of choices. It’s also referred to as “video on demand.” Live streaming refers to sports and news events that you can stream as they happen in real time. It also refers to channels that show a continuous, linear flow of programming.

FuboTV does the best job of letting you organize live channels to help you find just what you want to watch. The interface is uncluttered and when you search for something, the UI clearly tells you whether something is live now or on-demand. YouTube TV also does a good job making that info clear. Both have just over 100 live channels on offer.

Free TV streaming services like PlutoTV, Plex, Tubi and FreeVee show plenty of ad-supported TV shows and movies without charging you anything. Of course, they won’t have the same channels or content that more premium subscriptions have. Ultimately it depends on what you want to watch and finding the service that can supply that to you in the most streamlined form so you’re not paying for stuff you don’t need.

Advertisement

A basic cable package used to be more expensive than the base-level live TV streaming service. But now that nearly all major providers have raised their prices to over $75 per month, that’s no longer the case. And with add-ons and other premiums, you can easily pay over $200 a month for either cable or a live TV streaming service.

No service that we tested had every available channel. Hulu + Live TV and DirecTV Stream carry the highest number of the top rated channels, according to Neilsen. Hulu’s service will also get you Disney+ fare, which you can’t get elsewhere. FuboTV has the most sports channels and YouTube TV gives you the widest selection of add-ons.

YouTube TV has the most paying customers. According to this year’s letter from the company’s CEO, the service has over eight million subscribers. Disney’s 2023 fourth quarter earnings put the Hulu + Live TV viewer count at 4.6 million. Sling reported two million patrons and FuboTV claimed 1.1 million, both in respective year-end reports.

You may have heard certain sites that provide free content can be dangerous, leading to stolen info and/or exposing you to malware. That’s likely in reference to certain peer-to-peer (P2P) networks and file-sharing sites that let people download free movies and series — which can come bundled with malicious code.

Advertisement

But if you’re talking about the free ad-supported streaming television (FAST) services listed here, from providers like PlutoTV, Tubi and Freevee, they are just as safe as any other streaming service. Since you sometimes don’t even have to provide your email address or credit card info, they can even be more anonymous than apps that require login credentials.

Back to top

August 6, 2024: Updated with the addition of Plex as a free live TV streaming recommendation and mentioned the additional free channels Philo is now including with the free version of its service. Added pricing information for ESPN’s new sports-only streaming service, Venu.

June 12, 2024: Updated with more information about 4K live streaming, picture-in-picture and multiview modes, as well as video on-demand options. We expanded our recommendations around free live TV streaming services and added a FAQ query about the safety of free streaming services and clarified the difference between standard and live streaming. More traditional streaming services have added live and sports components, so we revised that section accordingly.

Advertisement

Back to top

Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Technology

AMD improves Zen 5 CPU latency and performance with BIOS updates

Published

on

AMD improves Zen 5 CPU latency and performance with BIOS updates

AMD is releasing new BIOS updates that will boost performance for its Ryzen 9600X / 9700X processors and address some latency issues. The performance improvements and latency reductions arrive around a month after disappointing Zen 5 desktop CPU reviews and appear alongside updates to Windows 11 that include optimized AMD-specific branch prediction for both Zen 4 and Zen 5 chips.

CPU reviewers have been reporting a higher-than-expected core-to-core latency across the Ryzen 9000-series of desktop processors, and now AMD has addressed this with a new BIOS optimization.

The latest AMD updates for AM5 motherboards include AGESA PI 1.2.0.2 firmware, which AMD says will address some “corner cases” where it takes two transactions to read and write when information is shared across different parts of a Ryzen 9 9000 processor. “We’ve managed to cut the number of transactions in half for this use case, which helps reduce core-to-core latency in multi-CCD models,” says AMD.

AMD is promising a 10 percent uplift on the 9700X with its new 105-watt mode.
Image: AMD
Advertisement

This BIOS update also includes a new 105-watt cTDP option to push the thermal design power of the Ryzen 9600X and 9700X. “These processors have been validated at 105W since their release, so you won’t be pushing them beyond their design limits,” says AMD. “This boost is especially beneficial for multithreaded workloads, but you might see some gains in less-threaded apps too.”

You’ll need to make sure you have appropriate cooling to enable the 105-watt mode, but AMD says it should result in around 10 percent more performance on the Ryzen 9600X and 9700X. This new mode won’t void your warranty, either.

AMD is also launching its next round of AM5 motherboards this week, with the X870 and X870E boards both available at retailers. You don’t need these new boards for AMD’s latest Ryzen 9000-series CPUs, but they do come with USB 4.0 as standard, and they also include PCIe 5 Gen 5 on the graphics and NVMe sides that can be used simultaneously. There are rumors that the upcoming RTX 5090 will be a PCIe Gen 5 card, and AMD teases it’s “more important than ever now that we are on the cusp of a new generation of graphics cards” to have full PCIe Gen 5 support.

The X870 and X870E boards also include support for higher-clocked memory. AMD has now enabled DDR5-8000 EXPO support on these new boards, which includes around 1 to 2ns of latency improvements over DDR5-6000.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Science & Environment

WTI on pace for third monthly loss

Published

on

WTI on pace for third monthly loss


Croft: To date, we haven't seen a supply disruption.

U.S. crude oil prices are on pace for a third monthly loss in a row in September as rising supplies from OPEC+ and weak demand in China haunt the market.

The U.S. benchmark has declined more than 7% for the month, while global benchmark Brent has fallen about 9%.

“Oil markets are experiencing a panic attack,” Amarpreet Singh, energy analyst at Barclays, told clients in a Friday note. “Balances are set to loosen next year, but concerns are likely overdone.”

Advertisement

Barclays expects Brent to average $85 in 2025.

Here are Monday’s energy prices:

  • West Texas Intermediate November contract: $68.23, up 5 cents, or 0.07%. Year to date, U.S. crude oil has fallen nearly 5%.
  • Brent November contract: $71.69 per barrel, down 29 cents, or 0.4%. Year to date, the global benchmark has declined nearly 7%.
  • RBOB Gasoline October contract: $1.954 per gallon, up 0.05%. Year to date, gasoline has pulled back about 7%.
  • Natural Gas November contract: $2.896 per thousand cubic feet, down 0.21%. Year to date, gas has gained about 16%.

Oil prices remain under pressure in part because OPEC+ plans to begin increasing production in December, and as demand in China, the world’s largest crude importer, remains soft.

Prices are finding little support from red hot tensions in the Middle East even after Israel killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in an airstrike in Beirut on Friday. The Netanyahu government is pummeling the Iran-backed militia group, with concerns growing that Israel might launch a ground operation in Lebanon.

“We believe that this price action reflects that the geopolitical risk premium remains limited [amid] market expectations of potentially higher oil supply” from Libya and Saudi Arabia, Daan Struyven, head oil analyst at Goldman Sachs, told clients in a Sunday note.

Advertisement

Don’t miss these energy insights from CNBC PRO:



Source link

Continue Reading

Servers computers

Product Tour: Tripp Lite SR42UB 42U Rack Enclosure Server Cabinet

Published

on

Product Tour: Tripp Lite SR42UB 42U Rack Enclosure Server Cabinet



@Newegg.com: http://bit.ly/123d74w
sku: 16-228-002

Check out our channel for more tech videos! http://www.youtube.com/newegg
and for all other newegg products, check out our second channel at http://www.youtube.com/neweggproducts

Newegg Inc. provides the information contained herein as an educational service. Although we believe the information in this presentation to be accurate and timely, because of the rapid changes in the industry and our reliance on information provided by outside sources, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content or other material which we may reference. This presentation is provided on an “as is” basis without warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of title, non-infringement or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. This video/audio file is the property of Newegg Inc. Newegg Inc. grants permission to distribute, rebroadcast or copy this file, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies (2) is for non-commercial use only and (3) is not modified in any way.
Copyright © 2011 Newegg Inc. All rights reserved. .

source

Continue Reading

Technology

Iranian hackers charged over Trump campaign disruption

Published

on

Iranian hackers charged over Trump campaign disruption

The US Department of Justice has announced criminal charges for three Iranian hackers involved in a ‘wide ranging hacking campaign’ primarily targeting former President Trump’s campaign documents, which were then leaked to the press.

Court documents outlined that hackers used spear phishing and social engineering techniques in order to compromise accounts belonging to members of the media, US government officials, and campaign staffers.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Technology

Should smartphones be banned for under 16s?

Published

on

Should smartphones be banned for under 16s?
BBC Two children talking into tin cans. The children have a grey filter and the background is green and red circles. BBC

Smartphones have worked their way deep into our lives and have become indispensable for work and socialising.

Unsurprisingly, many children want them too, but here we are much less sure of the benefits they bring. Many parents worry they are addictive and expose children to inappropriate and harmful content. A growing number think stronger restrictions are needed.

Others suggest some of the risks are overblown. They argue phones provide good opportunities for child development, including socialising, and that the evidence of harm is neither as convincing nor as conclusive as critics suggest.

I hosted a debate on WhatsApp between an academic and a campaigner, focusing on whether there’s a case to be made for stronger restrictions on children’s use of smartphones. What follows is an edited version of their conversation.

Meet the participants

Advertisement
A graphic that introduces the two participants. Daisy Greenwell, Co-founder of Smartphone Free Childhood, a campaign group and Sonia Livingstone, Professor at LSE who leads the university's research centre for children's digital rights.

To ban or not to ban?

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Daisy Greenwell from Smartphone Free Childhood, a grassroots campaign group against big tech, let’s start with you.

What kind of ban or restrictions do you want and why?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Hi Chris.

Firstly, we think banning is unhelpful framing. We’re not calling for an outright ban on smartphones.

Parents have been put in an impossible position by the tech companies – we either give our kids access to a harmful product (ie a smartphone with unrestricted access to the internet and social media) or go against the cultural grain and risk alienating them from their peer group.

Governments need to do better to help parents and protect young people.

Advertisement

Put simply, we believe that until tech companies can prove that their products are safe for children, children shouldn’t have unrestricted access to them.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

What restrictions would you like to see?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

We believe there should be default age-appropriate set up of smartphones. Age-verification technology exists – how can it be implemented at a device and content level to ensure children can only access services that are appropriate for them?

Despite the 13+ minimum age requirement for social media, 51% of British children under 13 use it. They should not be on these platforms as they are not safe, so we need to find a way of enforcing that as soon as possible.

We also believe the government should implement a mandatory ban on smartphones in schools, given that only 11% of schools currently have an effective ban, and all the the research proves that they are hugely disruptive for learning, behaviour and lead to serious safeguarding issues.

A beige box that reads InDepth context as the title. The body text is as follows: 

"11% of secondary schools either don't allow phones in school or insist they are locked up during the school day, a survey by Policy Exchange, a leading think tank, has found. This is called an "effective ban".

52% ban any use of phones including at breaks and lunchtime, but pupils are allowed to keep their phones in their bags.

36% of schools surveyed had a partial ban, with phones banned in some contexts but allowed at other times, such as at break or lunch."
An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Sonia Livingstone, you’re a social psychologist specialising in how tech affects children’s lives. Does the evidence support what Daisy is saying about the risks?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

Hi Daisy.

I think there are several points we could agree on, especially about avoiding the word ‘ban’…

Advertisement

Some points are trickier, though, including the application of age assurance, which is important for high-risk services but care is needed as it has privacy implications for the entire population.

On the question of evidence, it’s a mixed picture. There’s a little evidence supporting restrictions on smartphones in schools. For the rest of children’s lives, we need to consider the positives as well as the negatives of phone use.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Of course I agree and am aware of potential positives of smartphones for children. Wouldn’t it be great if all children could benefit from the upsides of this technology without any of the harms?

Unfortunately we’re a million miles away from that utopia at the moment.

That’s why something needs to change urgently.

Advertisement
An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Sonia, do you think it’s a mistake for schools to introduce bans?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

We’re just reviewing the research now. It’s pretty clear that parents, teachers and students would like clear and effective restrictions on use of phones in class.

The trouble is that we have had a policy of ‘bring your own device’ and of incorporating digital technologies into the classroom for educational purposes.

So I suggest it’s time to review our edtech policy more broadly. This hasn’t been updated since the pandemic, and is currently benefiting big tech and data brokers more than children, according to the evidence.

When we consult children, they agree with some of the risks and problems that Daisy points to.

But they also value their phones, precisely as a way of staying in touch with friends… Our society has cut many of the ways in which children have long been able to play or socialise outside the home.

Advertisement
An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

The network effects of this technology and the sophistication of their addictive design means parents and young people are fighting an impossible battle.

Who should regulate children’s mobile phone use?

A bar graph showing the percentage of five-to-seven-year-olds using social media and how it has risen in one year. The dates included are 2022 and 2023. Overall, the jump was 30% to 38%. For WhatsApp it was 29% to 37%. TikTok it was 25% to 30% and Instagram it was 14% to 22%.
An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Daisy – it’s hard for a child to buy a phone, and if they have one it’s probably come from mum or dad. Why not just leave it to parents to decide?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

It’s totally unfair to put the onus on the parents.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

I agree that the burden should be shifted to companies. Not only are they amplifying the harms, but also they refuse to provide more age-appropriate services and a wider diversity of products.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Sonia – are the risks as grave as Daisy suggests? Does the evidence support that?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

There’s a case to be made for both risks and benefits; and both appear to be greater for more vulnerable children.

So yes, children need better protections, for sure, and yes, the present situation is problematic for many and dangerous for some.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

The entire business model of social media giants is predicated on harvesting as much attention as possible. Smartphones and addictive social media apps have lured children away from the activities that are indispensable to healthy development – outdoor play, face-to-face conversations, sleep.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

The question is how to achieve the balance that the public wants between regulation vs education, individual choice vs limits for all.

If we ask: are smartphones bad for children, the evidence suggests yes in some ways, no in others, and it depends on the child and the circumstances.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Yes it’s complicated. You can always find two sides to any academic debate, but we think we need to take a step back and question the societal norm, which is to give children smartphones when they’re younger and younger… Do they need them?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

Now it sounds like you are putting the blame on parents, Daisy?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

No – we’re saying this is a huge societal issue that needs imagination and bold action.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

Moreover, if we ask what the causes of child wellbeing or poor mental health are, technology use is one among many factors – let’s start with poverty, family stress, lack of play and community resource, anxiety about the future…

Are children addicted to smartphones?

Advertisement
An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Sonia – some researchers have disputed the idea that they are addictive, is there good scientific evidence of that?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

I think Daisy has in mind the dark patterns and attention-grabbing incentives built into social media and game design; these certainly have adverse effects.

Clinicians are just careful about ‘addiction’ because alcoholism, drug addiction etc are rather different.

Still, they agree that some 1-3% of the child population meets the threshold for clinical addiction to tech.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

What about behavioural addiction?

We all know what addiction to our smartphones feels like… it seems ludicrous to question whether they’re addictive or suggest only 1-3% are.

We know that children are spending four to nine-plus hours a day on these devices.

Advertisement
An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

I’m trying not to be ludicrous, and am happy to offer citations to clinical research.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Daisy – what needs to change, would you increase the age limits on social media for example?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

We believe that until social media platforms can prove they are safe for children, children shouldn’t be on them. We’re very interested in what the Australian government is exploring.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

All interesting proposals, and as ever, the devil is in the detail. Three questions from me:

1. Is the British public ready for mandatory age verification? They will have to get used to giving up their personal information to companies. Can we trust those companies with such sensitive information?

2. Yes, let’s enforce age limits. But first, let’s debate the right one – 13 is pretty much an accident of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, not a thought-through child-protection policy.

A beige box with the words "Daisy Greenwell is typing..." inside.

3. How safe should platforms be? As safe as roads? Or swimming pools? And how can we balance risks with opportunities?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

On your first question, the public is crying out for something to change. It’s not up to us to figure out the workings of age-verification technology, but we shouldn’t give up because it’s complicated.

To your second question, totally agree, we don’t think 13 is the right age – it’s based on 25-year-old US data law, not child wellbeing – but it is the age at the moment so it should be enforced.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

Yes, the public wants change, and rightly so. But sadly, unless we can propose workable solutions, we may find our calls unheeded.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

This sounds defeatist – it shouldn’t be on parents to come up with all the policy solutions in what is an incredibly complicated space.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

I don’t think it is all on parents. Academics, regulators, civil society, children’s charities, lawyers and technologists are all actively seeking ways forward.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

How young is too young to be on social media, Sonia?

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

I’m afraid I consider that the wrong question. We may need another debate.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Why? It seems a question that nobody wants to answer

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

OK, let me give it a try.

1. The right age for one child is not right for another.

Advertisement

2. It depends what the child wants to do online.

3. It depends if the child is vulnerable or supported.

4. It depends what digital product or service you are talking about.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Would you apply the same logic to the age of consent?!

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

That’s yet another debate – am not refusing to answer, but it will take time. Perhaps you have quick answers to big problems, but I like to weigh the evidence.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Daisy – what about Sonia’s third question. We do let children take risks where we think there are rewards too in sport etc.

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

It’s interesting framing – it certainly shouldn’t be driving kids to suicide, eating disorders, anxiety, depression, etc.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

Do children benefit from having smartphones?

A bar chart showing the results of a survey about when children receive a smartphone. It says most children have a smartphone by the age 10.
An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

Do you accept, Daisy, that there are benefits to owning these devices and is it right to cut children off from those benefits that adults enjoy?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

The upsides of technology are clear… Smartphones are incredibly useful. We carry around all-powerful supercomputers in our pockets that know everything and are connected to everyone, everywhere… They’ve transformed the way we live.

But at what cost? We need to question the assumption that all technological advancement is social progress.

Advertisement

Kids don’t actually need to be connected to the internet 24/7. They don’t need phones for work or to organise diaries etc.

A brick phone can keep them connected to family and friends.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

But don’t children need to learn how to use these tools that many adults find essential?

An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

A five-year-old can learn how to use Instagram in about four minutes – that’s really not a valid argument.

Do children need to learn how to have sex before they’re 16, or drive before they’re 17? Both things that will be important to their adult lives.

A beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone is typing..."

Also we aren’t saying don’t use tech – just don’t have unrestricted access to the internet in your pocket 24/7.

An image of Sonia Livingstone in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Sonia Livingstone"

The thing is, society has involved the internet – typically accessed via a smartphone – in most domains…

So it’s hard to know where to start. One place might be the recent Good Childhood Report. It gives a decent measure of what’s going wrong.

Advertisement
An image of Daisy Greenwell in a red circle to the left. The face is next to a beige box that reads "Daisy Greenwell"

Why shouldn’t children have healthy, intentional, non-addictive relationships with technology that enhances their lives?

We would say the solution starts with people power, not more academic quarrels.

An image of BBC reporter Chris Vallance in a red circle on the right. The face is next to a grey box that reads "Chris Vallance"

We’re going to wrap up now. Thank you both – it’s been a lively debate.

A beige banner with Chris Vallance's profile and a series of red and green dots. The banner reads "Key takeaways from Chris Vallance".

This debate has demonstrated that even people who agree that tech firms need to do more can disagree passionately over how far we should restrict children’s smartphone use.

The UK government says it has no plans to introduce a smartphone ban for under 16s, and there may be no consensus over how much change is needed, but change is happening nonetheless: tech firms are rolling out new child-safety features, schools are adopting new policies and the technology itself continues to evolve, creating more opportunities and risks.

Disagreement over how we keep children safe online will likely be with us for some time.

BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Servers computers

2U Server Rack Shelf – CABSHF2POSTV2 | StarTech.com

Published

on

2U Server Rack Shelf - CABSHF2POSTV2 | StarTech.com



The 2 post server rack shelf allows you to add a high capacity mid-mount fixed shelf to almost any standard 2 post server rack.

source

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com