1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tried Roku coming back to DTV

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by NOLANSKI, Jun 5, 2011.

  1. Jun 5, 2011 #1 of 59

    NOLANSKI Legend

    Apr 4, 2007
    In an effort to try and save money I went for a broadband solution for TV using Roku.
    While mildly successful the content just isn't there YET. Which will improve with time and the HD picture quality is less than stellar.
    So I was at Costco last weekend and I saw where I could get Dish and all the HD I needed for about $40 a month for 12 months which works out fine with our budgetary plans. Plus we get a $50 Costco cash card.
    Then I called DTV and asked what they had to offer from Costco. Their offer was a far better deal. A few more HD channels at $1 more a month than the Dish deal and my savings will continue through year 2 at a lesser extent.... PLUS a $180 Costco cash card! No brainer good to be back!:)

    One question what HR model can I expect? I know I get what I get but what are they installing now?
  2. Jun 5, 2011 #2 of 59

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    The best you can get are 24s, though that's mostly due to speed, and we've been told a major speed boost will come to the other receivers in October with the new user interface.
  3. Jun 7, 2011 #3 of 59

    bnwrx Icon

    Dec 29, 2007
    Off topic, but where can I read about this?
  4. Jun 7, 2011 #4 of 59

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    May 17, 2010
    It's a luck of the draw. You'll get what's on the installer's truck. The only difference between the HR24 series receivers and the others is speed when channel surfing and menu hopping. They all provide the same high quality audio and video when viewing.
  5. Jun 7, 2011 #5 of 59

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    Apr 23, 2002
    I got Roku a while back but I never considered it to be a full replacement for sat or cable but, rather, an excellent supplement. You should have figured that out beforehand. However, I was able to replace all my premium movie packages for a monthly savings of over $60.
  6. Jun 7, 2011 #6 of 59

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
  7. Jun 7, 2011 #7 of 59

    jdspencer Hall Of Fame

    Nov 7, 2003
  8. Jun 7, 2011 #8 of 59
    Bob Coxner

    Bob Coxner Icon

    Dec 28, 2005
    Not sure you have any interest but you can now get tons of free xxx pron on Roku private channels. That might sway some people. ;-)
  9. Jun 7, 2011 #9 of 59

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    Dec 6, 2006

    We're seeing a lot of these stories...people leaving for "greener pastures" and then coming back not soon after they left. It just doesn't measure up in quality and content. Quality might get there eventually as infrastructure improves....content may be another story.
  10. itzme

    itzme Hall Of Fame

    Jan 17, 2008
    Satracer, I agree for now. But in a couple years, specifically what networks do you think will not offer their content over IPTV? ESPN? CNN? Why wouldn't they offer their product direct to the consumer?
  11. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    Mar 18, 2008
    They want to keep their retrans fees. If they start to dilute the pool too much they lose value because ad based fees won't compensate them enough for it. Content providers won't bite off the hand that feeds them.
  12. itzme

    itzme Hall Of Fame

    Jan 17, 2008
    I see. Makes sense. This business model has always fascinated me given me a headache. But how about once there is a demand for IPTV? Won't that change the model? In other words, I'd have to pay a hypothetical $5 direct to ESPN instead of the $4 retrans (I can't remember the real amount) that ESPN gets from DTV, won't ESPN want to cut out the middle man? I could be way off here.
  13. billsharpe

    billsharpe Hall Of Fame

    Jan 25, 2007
    Don't forget hard disk capacity and OTA availability as differences between models. :)
  14. rayik

    rayik AllStar

    Mar 30, 2009
    So far we are happy with our OTA and streaming with the Roku. Netflix ($8 / month) and Hulu Plus ($8 / month) sure do help provide a wide selection of HD content. (There are other good, high picture quality roku "channels" out there.)
  15. DogLover

    DogLover Hall Of Fame

    Mar 18, 2007
    Well, now they get the fee for all customers. If the cut out the middle man, then they only get the customers that think they are worth that much money. As long as most customers use the middle man, that would be okay for them. If enough people cut the middle man out, then the middle man goes out of business, and ESPN loses all that revenue for customers that aren't willing to pay their fee. Then, to keep their profit up, they have to raise their rates. But, if they raise them, the lose more customers.

    That not to say that things won't change in the delivery of TV. But it probably won't be simple, and their will be probably be many growing pains along the way.
  16. R0am3r

    R0am3r Legend

    Sep 20, 2008
    Same story here. I dropped Showtime and the Sports Package and replaced it with a Roku and Netflix. The quality delivered on my Roku is wonderful and I can stream things any time I want. I am considering dropping HBO and Starz/Encore and move to other streaming media like Amazon.
  17. josetann

    josetann Legend

    Oct 2, 2006
    I've had the opposite experience. I have one WDTV Live Hub, one WDTV Live Plus, and one Roku XDS. I tend to alternate between Hulu Plus and Netflix, so monthly expenses are kept under $10/mo. Thanks to the two WDTV boxes, our entire DVD library is available at any time. Love the Mochi interface on the Hub (it's connected to our primary tv). The few things we can't watch using Netflix or Hulu, we can either purchase the DVDs or wait for Netflix to mail them out.

    We've budgeted $50/mo for entertainment expenses. Hardware and subscription costs come out of this (to be fair...when I sold off some of our previous equipment, I used that money to purchase some of the new boxes). We have enough left over that we can actually go out every so often to the movie theater!

    Anyways...works for us...we have plenty to watch, there's never a moment where there's just absolutely nothing available. Had DirecTV, liked the service, but this made more sense for us.
  18. mluntz

    mluntz Icon

    Jul 13, 2006
    +1. I agree it could be a nice supplement to existing services, for those who can afford it.

    But no 5.1 for Netflix on roku yet is a deal killer for me!
  19. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    5.1 is available on some of the Amazon stuff and that is sort of like Netflix in that if you have Prime, you get a lot of stuff.

    BUT, the movies are older and while the PQ can be acceptable, it is still not as good as DirecTV. And no matter what anyone says, I have yet to see the sports stuff on streaming be anywhere near the quality of cable or satellite.
  20. josetann

    josetann Legend

    Oct 2, 2006
    I've read on the roku forums that there's a decent bit of sports stuff available now. But, full disclosure, I don't watch a lick of sports stuff (not baseball, basketball, football, soccer, not even golf). So, it may be a lot easier for someone like me to not have cable/satellite.

Share This Page