"blue_94_trooper" wrote:"atc98092" wrote:
Yes, there are many online articles with misleading titles.
I've seen articles about how to get a date with Natalie Dormer. I think I'd fall for that before I'd believe there is any such thing as free television, no matter what anybody's ad copy says.
@optikhog: Yes, it does state "Subscription required," or "additional fees may be required," or something to that effect on many channels... and I do indeed pay for several of these channels. TANSTAAFL (google it.) Note though: nowhere... I'll repeat: nowhere.. does it say that you must have a cable subscription in order to view this channel. You find that out only when you try to watch it. NatGeo actually lets you watch about an hour of programming before they boot you out and want to know who your "provider" is. That would be called a "misleading practice" in my book. If a cable subscription is required to view the channel, it ought to say to right up front, so you don't waste your time and wind up frustrated and disappointed... and angry at being jerked around yet again, this time by Roku instead of cable (which most of us have learned to expect from them.)
So would subscribing to a provider such as Direct TV Now solve the issue discussed above?
"jeffd0956" wrote:[Like a lot of other people, I gave cable the boot due to it's rapacious business practices, and instead purchased a Roku streaming device. Was quite happy with it, until I started running into channels like "The History Channel," and now "NatGeo," that won't play unless you tell them who your "Provider" is, and log in through them to watch.
This was part of the very first post that started this thread. I hope my question makes sense. If when I use the DTN streaming service, will I be required to pay additional to watch The History Channel, NetGeo, etc, as the poster descibed was happening to him
I'm guessing the basic hulu, not the hulu live TV, won't cut it ether for something like the syfy roku app? Since There isn't much from syfy there. If you browse by network, they only have a few old things like battlestar galactica.
Like a lot of other people, I gave cable the boot due to it's rapacious business practices, and instead purchased a Roku streaming device. Was quite happy with it, until I started running into channels like "The History Channel," and now "NatGeo," that won't play unless you tell them who your "Provider" is, and log in through them to watch.
The long and short of it is: just because you see it listed as "available" in the channel store (or whatever they're calling it these days,) that doesn't mean it's available for you to watch. Some of these "offerings" require a cable subscription in order to watch them.
I don't understand WHY Roku shows these channels as if they were available for watching through a streaming device, when in fact they're NOT... unless you have a cable subscription (which kind of defeats the whole purpose of buying a Roku in the first place, doesn't it?) Why would somebody with a cable subscription buy a Roku in the first place? You've got cable... you've got internet... what's the point of having a Roku at all in that situation? I don't get it. I really thought that Roku had positioned itself as "The answer to cable"... but maybe I just got the wrong impression. If so, they've certainly changed their tune.
So anyway, prospective cord cutters: know that Roku is not a direct replacement for cable. It's better than nothing at all (especially with broadcast TV all but extinct), but there's still a bunch of "pay-for" (which I have no problem with at all... I pay for several channels now), and other stuff that you can't watch at all unless you do in fact still have cable. I just don't think that cable-only content has any place in the Roku lineup. OR, if it does, why it isn't segregated into a 'cable-only' or 'cable subscription required' area. I'd happily pay for either of these channels (or any channel I like enough to be willing to pay for,) but that's just not an option here. Cable, or nothing.
I'm beginning to think that they're just all in bed together... given cables' deep pockets, they probably just quietly bought Roku, left it mostly alone to appease cable haters like me, and just as quietly started adding their 'cable-subscription-required' content. And no, I'm not some conspiracy-theory nut... I just for the life of me can't understand why I'm seeing things in the Roku that I can't watch unless I ALSO have cable. And if I had cable, why would I have a Roku?