# Showtime Anytime on Roku Now Requiring Weekly Verification



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Starting on 1 Jan 2016, Showtime Anytime (the Roku 'cable' subscription powered/verified app) is requiring weekly (or almost weekly) re-verification of ones subscription creditials. One will get a 're-authorization required' screen, and users will have to either install an app on their smartphone or desktop to gain access to the 're-verification' process.

So far, it appears that to get things re-running on Roku, one has to delete the Roku app, reboot the box, and re-install to get back working again (which is what I had to do on both Roku4's I own). At least, that's what I had to do, and in doing so and messaging some folks on the Roku Blog, got a 'warning' from one of the moderators that I was talking (somehow) about a 'forbidden' (but unspecified) subject.

As I have most of not all the other subscription verified type apps on my Roku4's (HBOGo et. al.) Showtime is, so far, the only provider requiring this hoop jumping. Hopefully, this is not going to be some sort of trend, it does make be wonder if Showtime isn't somehow getting 'updates' from the provider (in this case DirecTV) as to folks who drop their cable/satellite/telco subscription and expect the roku app to keep running, don't know. 

To me, if they keep this up and don't change it back to what everyone else does, I'll simply vote with my money and drop the Showtime subscription on DirecTV, and I'll let DirecTV know exactly why I'm doing so.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

I guess I'm not following your thread. 

In the first paragraph, you said to complete the re-verification, you can install and app on a smart phone/tablet or your desk top. But in your second paragraph, you said you had to uninstall Roku, reboot, reinstall and then complete your verification.

I think I'd just install the app.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Seems ridiculous it's not tied to the account and kept current that way like everyone else is anyway. Weird.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

The 'verification app' one has to install is on either your smartphone or desktop, not the actual roku 'showtime anytime' app. But to get that roku app to 'restart' and work again, one has to jump through the 'delete/reboot/reinstall' hoop. 

Yes, totally different from anybody else (app) on roku using subscription credentials. Hope to *heck* that this is not copied by the other apps.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I have to reauthorize Showtime all the time on Roku and FireTV. It's annoying.

You don't need to reinstall on Roku, there's a way in the options to reauthorize.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Yes, supposedly, I and lots of others can't get it to work. Don't know which models everyone has. I have roku4's, they update firmware daily.

This is 'tail wagging the dog' cr*p invented by pathetic programmers who are trying to justify their jobs.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm not surprised by this. So many people share accounts (i.e. someone with no cable/satellite subscription "borrowing" the password of a friend of relative who has one) they have to do something. Maybe they are making it a pain, but I think Showtime is just the thin end of the wedge here and in a few years it will be commonplace for not only them but other premium networks like HBO, ESPN, and so forth.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Yes, but. (One of my favorite sayings)

They have restrictions on the numbrr of connections, they can also limit by ip addresses (multiple boxes like me but coming from the same ip is good, they can check that multiple ip's aren't). 

Why they don't and instead use draconian methods is that their programmers are too dumb to do anything that I've mentioned, or anything else that doesn't make using any of these new tech difficult; unless that's their goal. (!)


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

1948GG said:


> Yes, supposedly, I and lots of others can't get it to work. Don't know which models everyone has. I have roku4's, they update firmware daily.
> 
> This is 'tail wagging the dog' cr*p invented by pathetic programmers who are trying to justify their jobs.


Don't be blamin' the programmers. They would have written better ways to make this re-verification easy, if given the chance. Typically it comes down to one of a couple non-technical problems foisted upon the programmers: 1) An executive decision on "how it should work" or 2) an executive decision on not enough programmers, "get it out the door, now!" or 3) a variation on the "get it out the door now, fix it later," especially if there was a technical hangup for some reason on the Roku API.



1948GG said:


> Yes, but. (One of my favorite sayings)
> 
> They have restrictions on the numbrr of connections, they can also limit by ip addresses (multiple boxes like me but coming from the same ip is good, they can check that multiple ip's aren't).
> 
> Why they don't and instead use draconian methods is that their programmers are too dumb to do anything that I've mentioned, or anything else that doesn't make using any of these new tech difficult; unless that's their goal. (!)


Limits by IP won't work, that would blow out tablets and smartphones. And travelling laptops/rokus. Yes, I have taken my roku on the road to plug into hotel TVs. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

You're right as to the 'executives', but the programmers need some backbone against stupid ideas.

Restrictions on ip's would work, it's the SIMULTANEOUS operation that could be trapped. If you take your box on the road (just like I took my sat all over the US) but if you are on the other side of the country with your box, it can't still be at home (two places at the same time)

You own muliple boxes? Netflix is limited by how many streams you purchase, same with all/most others. Use your cable/sat credetials to stream Showtime? Then limit the number of streams. One or two or three is okay, more (again from multiple ip's) disallow the muliple connections, and put that in your terms of service.

Done deal, easy to do ( if brains are at work). You can't stop everything or everybody doing all ways one could rip things off, but you could keep it from going rampant while not totally inconviencing (SP!) your paying customers.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

1948GG said:


> You're right as to the 'executives', but the programmers need some backbone against stupid ideas.
> 
> Restrictions on ip's would work, it's the SIMULTANEOUS operation that could be trapped. If you take your box on the road (just like I took my sat all over the US) but if you are on the other side of the country with your box, it can't stll be at home (two places at the same time)
> 
> ...


In what world can programmers stand up to the CEO and say "hire more of us, cuz this is stupid" and not be fired? C'mon, man! let's be reasonable as to what peons can do against an executive... 

So if I'm travelling, my wife can't use the box at home? My daughter can't use her tablet while at the gym? My son can't use his cellphone whilst walking? Sure, IP limits work great--for a family of one person... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> In what world can programmers stand up to the CEO and say "hire more of us, cuz this is stupid" and not be fired? C'mon, man! let's be reasonable as to what peons can do against an executive...
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


I did that once and got me a nice 3 days vacation. So it CAN be done with outstanding consequences !rolling

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

The four folks at once might be stretching it; after all, if you had 4 stb's on your cable/sat account, you'd be paying a 'clone' fee for each, right?

As far as being shown the door if one protested, you might be interested to know that I did tech company autopsies (based in Silicon Valley) 20 years ago, and most if not all of those ceo/owners, shellshocked, knew pretty much exactly what they had done wrong. And their now out of work employees knew all the gory details. 

So one can bury their head in the sand, try to sock away enough coin to be able to jump ship, hopefully before it crashes. Been there done that before and after my stint freelancing for the venture capital crowd on the hunt for ripe opportunities.

Btw, it appears late tonight Showtime has seen the errors of their ways, and things look like they're back the way they were. Will have to check things out fully tomorrow.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Don't sub. (Subscribe or be subservient, your choice).

No 'verification'.

No problem.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

That's exactly what I told them; read above. But will give them a little bit of time to fix.

One set started working last night out of the blue. The second box, the verification page was working last night but I was too tired to try, put it off until this morning. Verification page was back to not working, then the web page dissapeared, then came back (bet the programmers were working on it, since 2 hrs later it was back). 

Took 2-3 tries, but eventually it worked. Multiple hoop jumping.

Why go through all this cr*p? First, I'm paying for it (as are all subs roku or not). Second, the roku apps for all the premium movie channels (hbogo et. al.) have 5-10 times as much content as DirecTv vod system. That alone makes the box cost worth it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

1948GG said:


> The four folks at once might be stretching it; after all, if you had 4 stb's on your cable/sat account, you'd be paying a 'clone' fee for each, right?
> 
> As far as being shown the door if one protested, you might be interested to know that I did tech company autopsies (based in Silicon Valley) 20 years ago, and most if not all of those ceo/owners, shellshocked, knew pretty much exactly what they had done wrong. And their now out of work employees knew all the gory details.
> 
> ...


It would seem you have no spouse or kids at this point. 

And yes, I have more than 4 DIRECTV viewing locations paid for... (Clients, Genie, and DVRs.)

It's pretty common in this house to have 4 streams running simultaneously. And if IP checking were enabled, when one of us is out of town, what does that do to the rest? Heck, if one is on their phone and one is streaming at starbucks, plus one at home, that is 3 IPs. How do you check them?

Or how about 4 in a car streaming while I'm driving? Four IPs...

The power of streaming is watching anywhere. IP checking is the whole other direction. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Most of the 'stand alone' services (netflix etc) are very specific on how many simultaineous streams are allowed (netflix will give you about as many as your wallet can stand).

I think where it gets wobbly is where the provider doesn't have 'hard' limits, and folks 'push it'. Any of these providers can simply limit it to one connection period per account. That some may allow more is a give away. 

If your pushing the envelope by getting more than one stream without paying for it upfront, count your blessings. These cable/sat providers could be charging extra instead of giving a small 'freebee'.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

1948GG said:


> Most of the 'stand alone' services (netflix etc) are very specific on how many simultaineous streams are allowed (netflix will give you about as many as your wallet can stand).
> 
> I think where it gets wobbly is where the provider doesn't have 'hard' limits, and folks 'push it'. Any of these providers can simply limit it to one connection period per account. That some may allow more is a give away.
> 
> If your *[should be you're] *pushing the envelope by getting more than one stream without paying for it upfront, count your blessings. These cable/sat providers could be charging extra instead of giving a small 'freebee'.


There is no need to be accusatory. Since you already know "[N]etflix will give you about as many as your wallet can stand", why are you hinting my family might be abusing the "freebee"?

All I was trying to do was explain why IP lockouts are useless as a gatekeeper. People going from home wifi, to cell IP, to work wifi, to restaraunt wifi change IP addresses all the time and can still be completely legit. Either parent can travel all the time, leaving the rest of the family at home, and be completely legit.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> All I was trying to do was explain why IP lockouts are useless as a gatekeeper. People going from home wifi, to cell IP, to work wifi, to restaraunt wifi change IP addresses all the time and can still be completely legit. Either parent can travel all the time, leaving the rest of the family at home, and be completely legit.


The key would be "simultaneous" streams. Changing IPs should work if the device is _changing_ IPs - abandoning the old and starting up on the new. Simultaneously STAYING on several old IPs would be a sign of overuse. Service providers that sell per stream or have a limit of number of simultaneous streams should watch to make sure new IPs are replacing old IPs (possibly using device IDs to assist in the tracking).

Some service providers have an arbitrary limit ... exceed that limit and expect to be cut off or have to re-authorize to make sure that the authorized user has approved that connection. If one shares a password with friends they run the risk of having their own usage cut off when the friend re-authorizes their connection.

Service providers with no limits either do not have content that is worth protecting or have not bothered to implement security. I expect that the lack of protection will go away over time.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> The key would be "simultaneous" streams. Changing IPs should work if the device is _changing_ IPs - abandoning the old and starting up on the new. Simultaneously STAYING on several old IPs would be a sign of overuse. Service providers that sell per stream or have a limit of number of simultaneous streams should watch to make sure new IPs are replacing old IPs (possibly using device IDs to assist in the tracking).
> 
> Some service providers have an arbitrary limit ... exceed that limit and expect to be cut off or have to re-authorize to make sure that the authorized user has approved that connection. If one shares a password with friends they run the risk of having their own usage cut off when the friend re-authorizes their connection.
> 
> Service providers with no limits either do not have content that is worth protecting or have not bothered to implement security. I expect that the lack of protection will go away over time.


There is no means to determine overuse based upon IP. You also seem to have no spouse or kids. 

I repeat, we regularly have 4 simultaneous, legit, streams because 4 people go off to watch their thing. They could all have the same IP--or any combination of IP addresses for cell, wifi (might be the neighbors xfinity if the device connected to that instead of mine), hardwired, VPN, who knows what. Heck, these days, they all could be in the same room with earbuds. I'm given to understand that many millennial families spend TV time all watching different things these days.

So if I'm traveling for work, I could have a legitimate IP that I've never used, from a different location I might never have been, and still find myself streaming legitimately from a service at the same time others in my family would. We already know Netflix does legitimately allow this, which is what our family mostly uses.

As to Showtime Anytime, they have some goofy rules--up to 5 members of the household, 5 devices, and 3 simultaneous streams per their faq: http://www.showtimeanytime.com/#/faq/access-showtime-anytime. If a family has lots of devices, I can see how that is a major problem and could cause the behaviors described in the original post. I like the 5 members part (though I haven't tried it yet), don't have a problem with the 3 streams--but the 5 devices can be a problem. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

1948GG said:


> I think where it gets wobbly is where the provider doesn't have 'hard' limits, and folks 'push it'. Any of these providers can simply limit it to one connection period per account. That some may allow more is a give away.


If the provider doesn't have 'hard' limits, then what is there for folks to push?


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> As to Showtime Anytime, they have some goofy rules--up to 5 members of the household, 5 devices, and 3 simultaneous streams per their faq: http://www.showtimeanytime.com/#/faq/access-showtime-anytime.


I believe you are confusing 'Showtime Anytime' the cable/sat subscriber app with the 'Showtime' standalone subscription app. Showtime itself may be confused, or their lawyers/writers, I won't strain my injured brain on it.

Showtime Anytime limits 'live' streams (sho/e and sho/w) to one (same ip). Verified. Non-live I'm not sure, will have to test maybe at some point.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

trh said:


> If the provider doesn't have 'hard' limits, then what is there for folks to push?


Kinda like isp's ( or cellphone companies) that abuse the word 'unlimited'. They are playing games, and they will keep doing so to gain users/market share up and until the point where it gets completely out of hand. (this is the pay services) Hulu is a good example, started off with wobbly number of simultaneous streams, then started cracking down, now appears to allow many from one ip (or maybe more, all 'depending'; in short 'soft').

The ad supported of course don't care at all, more eyeballs.

The pay folks, I either figure to get exactly what I pay for (Netflix whatever, Hulu one or ?) And simply be suprised at any limit from the ad folks.

I'm sure everyone will have an opinion on this from one end of the spectrum to the other. This whole idea of 'anywhere' tv, particularly taking your cable/sat viewing with you 'on the go', is new, and probably allowing 'the Duggers' to stream scores of programs from one subscription is going to eventually cause limits to be put in place. The providers need to think about this carefully.

Directv allows, from their streaming app, up to 5 (Sunday ticket 1. Mlb unknown) and the provider apps are, naturally, all over the place. Dish, Cablecos, unk.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

1948GG said:


> I believe you are confusing 'Showtime Anytime' the cable/sat subscriber app with the 'Showtime' standalone subscription app. Showtime itself may be confused, or their lawyers/writers, I won't strain my injured brain on it.
> 
> Showtime Anytime limits 'live' streams (sho/e and sho/w) to one (same ip). Verified. Non-live I'm not sure, will have to test maybe at some point.


I took straight from the Showtime Anytime section of the FAQ, not from the LiveTV section of the Showtime Anytime FAQ. Since the thread title talks about Showtime Anytime, that is what I thought we were discussing. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

1948GG said:


> ...
> 
> Showtime Anytime limits 'live' streams (sho/e and sho/w) to one (same ip). Verified. Non-live I'm not sure, will have to test maybe at some point.


Tested moments ago, Showtime Anytime does not limit simultaneous users to a single IP.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

1948GG said:


> I'm sure everyone will have an opinion on this from one end of the spectrum to the other. This whole idea of 'anywhere' tv, particularly taking your cable/sat viewing with you 'on the go', is new, and probably allowing 'the Duggers' to stream scores of programs from one subscription is going to eventually cause limits to be put in place. The providers need to think about this carefully.


In my cynical mind, I think some are not putting limits on their services as they want to get everyone hooked on being able to watch on any/all devices anywhere. Then once we're all hooked, they'll start putting limits/charges on what we're now getting 'for free'.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

trh said:


> In my cynical mind, I think some are not putting limits on their services as they want to get everyone hooked on being able to watch on any/all devices anywhere. Then once we're all hooked, they'll start putting limits/charges on what we're now getting 'for free'.


Yes, I think you are correct in that some are doing this intentionally. Others are probably going to do the same thing, though they didn't intend to do so from the outset--they probably didn't think about needing limits up front.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> There is no means to determine overuse based upon IP. You also seem to have no spouse or kids.


Please reread my post and keep your personal comments about other posters OFF of the forum. I believe I have explained it sufficiently for an inteligent person to understand, if they wish to understand.

It may not be the perfect solution, but companies can and do use IP do help determine overuse.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> Please reread my post ....
> 
> It may not be the perfect solution, but companies can and do use IP do help determine overuse.


Ok, I will. Here it is:



James Long said:


> The key would be "simultaneous" streams. Changing IPs should work if the device is _changing_ IPs - abandoning the old and starting up on the new. Simultaneously STAYING on several old IPs would be a sign of overuse. Service providers that sell per stream or have a limit of number of simultaneous streams should watch to make sure new IPs are replacing old IPs (possibly using device IDs to assist in the tracking).


So in this example they really aren't watching IPs, they are watching streams or devices. I like that--it supports my point of view. Thanks. 



James Long said:


> Some service providers have an arbitrary limit ... exceed that limit and expect to be cut off or have to re-authorize to make sure that the authorized user has approved that connection. If one shares a password with friends they run the risk of having their own usage cut off when the friend re-authorizes their connection.


So this doesn't talk about IPs at all. Yes, it is all correct--action and consequence of said action.



James Long said:


> Service providers with no limits either do not have content that is worth protecting or have not bothered to implement security. I expect that the lack of protection will go away over time.


Isn't the lock on the front door indicative the content has value, they know it has value, and that they put security in place? 

Back to your other comment: 


James Long said:


> It may not be the perfect solution, but companies can and do use IP do help determine overuse.


"Can and do use IP" doesn't mean it works.  Especially since in your example they could measure simultaneous streams or simultaneous devices as better measures.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> So in this example they really aren't watching IPs, they are watching streams or devices. I like that--it supports my point of view. Thanks.


So it appears that even though you complained about my post publicly, you agree with what I said. Amazing.

IPs can and obviously are part of the authentication process. Continuing to gloss over that statement does not change the fact.

A stream to one IP dies, a stream to another IP starts, if desired the system determines if the new IP is a continuation of the old or another unique stream. If the content provider tracks devices and notes that it is the same device and the old IP is no longer in use they can (their authentication, their option) continue streaming. Or they can ask for any reauthentication they need, even back to reentering the username/password. The provider does not need to use device fingerprints or any other trick to determine if a new IP is the same user moving to a new network ... they can simply dump the user and ask them to reauthenticate. Their choice.

Better methods available does not preclude using a different method. You may have a snowblower attached to a lawn tractor be the fastest way to clear snow from your driveway. It does not mean that you or anyone else cannot or does not use a shovel.

It is all up to the provider controlling their own content.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> So it appears that even though you complained about my post publicly, you agree with what I said. Amazing.
> 
> IPs can and obviously are part of the authentication process. Continuing to gloss over that statement does not change the fact.
> 
> ...


So it appears that you even though IP can be completely removed from your example, you don't seem to realize your example doesn't use IPs at all. Amazing.

They are using simultaneous streams or simultaneous devices. Take IP out completely and it still works.  "To continue to gloss over that statement does not change the fact." (I read that somewhere.) 

I think to state IP is part of the authentication is disingenuous. While IP is vital to the handling of a communication stream setup/connection/teardown, it really isn't any more a part of the authentication than the wire used by the keyboard used to communicate the password. Yeah, technically it plays a part in the authentication, but the KB wire isn't really "a part of the authentication" itself.

Yes, some companies do use IPs. Some police officers shoot first, cover later. Neither is very useful--yet still are done.

And this all goes back to various scenarios from the thread starter that IPs are usable, not that they are used. My explanations are about why they aren't useful for authentication. (There is limited use for gatekeeping by region--but that isn't authentication.)

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> So it appears that you even though IP can be completely removed from your example, you don't seem to realize your example doesn't use IPs at all.


IPs cannot be completely removed from a system where IP are used to help determine multiple logins.

On such systems when a request from a new IP is received the system asks for re-authentication. It may not be a re-authentication that involves the user but there still should be a re-authentication process before the user is permitted to continue receiving their content. Without some re-authentication the content might as well not be protected at all.

The IP can be used as a first sign of a problem. Single devices generally do not use multiple IPs at the same time to pull different content. Worst case scenario, if someone figures out how to clone device fingerprints so it appears your cell phone is the same device as my cell phone the different IP in use at the same time is a tipoff. Why is the same cell phone in Los Angeles and Detroit at the same time? Maybe it is time to ask both devices to log in again.

"Too many" logins from the same account at the same IP can be excused (if the provider wishes to do so) ... same IP is usually the same location (although some ISPs may run a proxy). Same account at multiple IPs is more likely to be a theft problem for content providers than same account at the same IP.

No matter how re-authentication is handled IP validation can be and is a tool content providers use.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

The 're-verification' seems to be holding after a few days; however, they seem to have problems streaming (non-live), it seems to have a lot of hiccops (read: buffering and disconnection) while I was watching movies and trying to catch up on 'Homeland'. 

None of that happening on either Netflix or Hulu or any of the other 'premium' channels (HBOGO etc.) so it doesn't appear to be my ISP or connection. 

I'll be keeping an eye on this.


----------

