# Tried Roku coming back to DTV



## NOLANSKI (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?


----------



## dpeters11 (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.


----------



## bnwrx (Dec 29, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> ...... and we've been told a major speed boost will come to the other receivers in October with the new user interface.


Off topic, but where can I read about this?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

NOLANSKI said:


> 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!
> ...


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.


----------



## Nick (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.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"bnwrx" said:


> Off topic, but where can I read about this?


It's in the HD GUI anticipation thread. This link is to the post that has what the CEO says.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2792927&postcount=272


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

bnwrx said:


> Off topic, but where can I read about this?


Here's the full thread on the HD GUI.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=191586


----------



## Bob Coxner (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. ;-)


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

NOLANSKI said:


> 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.?


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.


----------



## itzme (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?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

itzme said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> 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.


Don't forget hard disk capacity and OTA availability as differences between models.


----------



## rayik (Mar 30, 2009)

Satelliteracer said:


> 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.


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.)


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

"itzme" said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## R0am3r (Sep 20, 2008)

rayik said:


> 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.)


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.


----------



## josetann (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.


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> 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.


+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!


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

mluntz said:


> +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!


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.


----------



## josetann (Oct 2, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

itzme said:


> 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?


Let's put it this way, when programmers are getting $4, $10, $8 for channels from D*, Dish, Time Warner, etc, they are going to expect to get that same amount from these other sources...or else they are killing themselves.

Here's an example, for what a customer pays for Netflix right now, $8 a month, that wouldn't even cover the industry average for something like HBO. So all those folks that love Netflix at $8, do they still love it at $22 if it includes HBO? Suddenly the pricing gets out of whack...add in internet cap fees for downloads, the price now moves to $40 and you're still not seeing local broadcasts, sports, etc.

The key to all of this is the content providers and what they allow the Netflix, Hulus, etc of the world to show. Right now ESPN, HBO, (fill in the blank of many content providers) make billions each year from companies like DIRECTV. Will going to direct allow them to make the same kind of money? Will the experience be the same for the customer? ETc, etc.

Should be a wild decade.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

DogLover said:


> 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.


That's a double edge sword. For someone like a HBO or Starz, there is definitely a middle man. For a channel that is artificially lowered due to bundling (ESPN, CNN, AMC, etc, etc) that becomes a different issue unless these guys plan on selling via package bundle via IPTV. The reality is, they probably won't. That means that $4 ESPN the customer never sees because it's baked into their $60 overall package now becomes $7 to $10 for that one channel.

It's going to be a wild decade


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Satelliteracer said:


> 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.


All depends on what you watch I guess. I replaced DirecTV with an HTPC 18 months ago and even though I've got a job again I'll never look back. There isn't really a single thing I'm missing now that I can't live without. I'm certainly not going to pay $80+ a month to get just a couple programs I have trouble getting online. I'll just wait 6 months and get it from Netflix on DVD.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> All depends on what you watch I guess. I replaced DirecTV with an HTPC 18 months ago and even though I've got a job again I'll never look back. There isn't really a single thing I'm missing now that I can't live without. I'm certainly not going to pay $80+ a month to get just a couple programs I have trouble getting online. I'll just wait 6 months and get it from Netflix on DVD.


That's why I say it will all come down to the content providers. If they get more disciplined, as many in the industry are predicting, that 6 months becomes a year or more and some programming simply never goes there (question is, will they make people wait that longer or will it be next day? All depends on the provider). Obviously sports on ESPN and such simply don't exist via Netflix, Hulu, etc but require a cable subscription.

If you're not into sports, willing to wait potentially up to a year in the future, etc then it has no impact at all. So I agree with you to some extent, depends what you watch, when you want to watch it, and if you're ok with quality that might not be where you want it to be.....AKA "Good Enough"... then there are other products out there.

It's going to be a wild ride....the Netflixes of the world are going to have to price up, they really have no choice. Internet price caps are coming, that will have an effect, and then the biggest wild card...what do the ESPN, HBO, Showtime, networks do to provide their programming and at what risk to the $40 billion they earn now as an industry. Going to be interesting to watch.


----------



## RD in Fla (Aug 26, 2007)

For a big sports fan like myself, none of the other services are even an option at this point.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

I know I'm way OT here, but Satracer's comments are really making me think. 

How long has the 'retrans fee' model been around? Since cable in the 80s? More recent? Pre-DVRs? 

Until the past few years, and in my ignorance, I always thought the revenue model involved content providers selling ads, and then wanting as many eyeballs on those ads as possible. I suppose some stations still operate that way (Home shopping and religious channels). In that model the negotiating edge would be on the cable or satellite company to provide those eyeballs. Was it ever like that?

Now I understand that often the bigger revenue slice for some content providers is the retrans fee.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Satelliteracer said:


> That's why I say it will all come down to the content providers. If they get more disciplined, as many in the industry are predicting, that 6 months becomes a year or more and some programming simply never goes there (question is, will they make people wait that longer or will it be next day? All depends on the provider). Obviously sports on ESPN and such simply don't exist via Netflix, Hulu, etc but require a cable subscription.
> 
> If you're not into sports, willing to wait potentially up to a year in the future, etc then it has no impact at all. So I agree with you to some extent, depends what you watch, when you want to watch it, and if you're ok with quality that might not be where you want it to be.....AKA "Good Enough"... then there are other products out there.
> 
> It's going to be a wild ride....the Netflixes of the world are going to have to price up, they really have no choice. Internet price caps are coming, that will have an effect, and then the biggest wild card...what do the ESPN, HBO, Showtime, networks do to provide their programming and at what risk to the $40 billion they earn now as an industry. Going to be interesting to watch.


Yep, it will be fun to see what happens. But at least for me there is *nothing* that I have to see "right now" that will make me pay $80-$100 a month again. Nothing.

There isn't a single sporting event I've missed that I've wanted to see. I didn't miss a single MNF game last year for example.

Things will certainly change. But I'm not paying anyone be it DirecTV, Netflix or AT&T a big monthly bill again. I've got a lot better things to do with that money and plenty of entertainment options available to me to be beholden to the almighty TV. If that means waiting a year to see something I want to, so be it.

Then again, I'm not everyone.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Ok, shameless plug guys. Sorry.

While I agree that online content has not matured enough, there is a market for it so I hope you guys will visit our sister site to keep an eye on the industry. There are quite a few developments going on that are making things interesting. Just some of the home page entries are an interesting read.

http://www.iptvconnection.com/


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> There isn't a single sporting event I've missed that I've wanted to see. I didn't miss a single MNF game last year for example.


I missed how you got an ESPN game every week?


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> I missed how you got an ESPN game every week?


I'm gonna guess he went to the bar...


----------



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

I'm considering giving it a shot, with two young ones there's a lot of kids programming on that is easy to replace with Netflix etc. I would really miss the sports though from Speed & Fuel


----------



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

cygnusloop said:


> I'm gonna guess he went to the bar...


4x a month trip to a bar would far exceed my monthly DTV bill


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

cygnusloop said:


> I'm gonna guess he went to the bar...


LOL. Some of that, yes.

But there is always an ESPN America (Europe) or Armed Forces Network feed out "in the wild" somewhere on the Internet. May get commercials in Bulgarian or Russian, but it's there.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> All depends on what you watch I guess. I replaced DirecTV with an HTPC 18 months ago and even though I've got a job again I'll never look back. There isn't really a single thing I'm missing now that I can't live without. I'm certainly not going to pay $80+ a month to get just a couple programs I have trouble getting online. I'll just wait 6 months and get it from Netflix on DVD.


I have way more than I can watch in the limited time available to me. I could live quite happily with an antenna + my DVD Recorder w/hard drive, Netflix etc.

Unfortunately the other TV watchers would stage a revolt.



josetann said:


> 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.


The WD Hub has a great interface and plays my HD captures fine. DVD Rips also Fine. It sees the NAS I have on the network as well as the two usb drives plugged into it. And I can send or move video or whatever to any of those drives quite easily from my computer. The WD Hub acts as a mini NAS itself as far the drives plugged into it or it's internal drive. The only time I had a problem with the NAS, a 3tb Seagate was when it got almost full. I suspect too many small files.



Satelliteracer said:


> 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.


As for me if not for other family members I could dump satellite and spend that money on super high speed Internet 101Mbps and be happy. Speeds up to 101 Mbps downstream and up to 15Mbps upstream! To me it is worth the $100 per month that they charge.


----------



## George_T (Sep 19, 2002)

I have Apple TV. Got it mainly to get the MLB.TV package. Still have D* and love it, but the MLB.TV package is about half the price of D*'s MLB EI. 

PQ is not quite as sharp as D*, but more than acceptable on my 58" Samsung plasma. Also picked up Netflix as well, but don't watch a ton of movies, so I'll probably drop it. But both MLB.TV and Netflix have worked well for me. I've had a good overall experience with Apple TV as a supplement to D* this year.


----------



## NOLANSKI (Apr 4, 2007)

Wow I didn't expect this thread to grow this much!

While I know IPTV is just in it's infancy and I did do my research (someone said I should have here) the content and picture quality just is not there yet. You really don't know about things until you try it them. I have a great display and I love HD. IPTV isn't there yet for me.

Nope don't want to wait 6 months for this or that. Navigation is frustrating for my wife and I think that could be greatly improved as well.

I'm quite happy to be back. 12 months at a rate that is slightly cheaper than all the paid IPTV/Tivo services I currently signed up for...that's awesome plus I still get a discounted rate for the next 12 months after that not nearly as good as the first twelve but I'll take it.


----------



## ddebrunner (Sep 7, 2009)

bonscott87 said:


> But at least for me there is *nothing* that I have to see "right now" that will make me pay $80-$100 a month again. Nothing.


I wonder what effect this will have on the program makers, if there's no buzz around the premier of new series/season/episode on a specific evening, then will any show ever gain enough interest to sustain itself? I.e. the water-cooler effect of discussing last night's tv.

Will the release on a specific day online be enough to generate buzz?


----------



## whatliesbeyond (Mar 14, 2010)

NOLANSKI said:


> Wow I didn't expect this thread to grow this much!
> 
> While I know IPTV is just in it's infancy and I did do my research (someone said I should have here) the content and picture quality just is not there yet. You really don't know about things until you try it them. I have a great display and I love HD. IPTV isn't there yet for me.


I agree that IPTV is still too unrefined, and lacking some must-have content. But the world is changing. Technologically and financially. Directv is on a roll right now, but 10 years from now, I think they're going to look like Microsoft does now if they can't figure out a way to get around the IPTV challenge and the bundling advantage offered by cable and phone companies.

I know, 10 years is a long time, especially in these days, where it's hard to find companies that think beyond the next two quarters. And given the coming decline in the American standard of living, it could well be that every "entertainment" provider will be hurting big time in the coming years. Which probably explains the global marketing effort of Directv and many other companies. Hmmm, maybe these companies really are thinking ahead after all . . . .


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

ddebrunner said:


> I wonder what effect this will have on the program makers, if there's no buzz around the premier of new series/season/episode on a specific evening, then will any show ever gain enough interest to sustain itself? I.e. the water-cooler effect of discussing last night's tv.
> 
> Will the release on a specific day online be enough to generate buzz?


For me that hasn't been the case in over 10 years. I got my first DVR (Tivo) back in 2000. Since then I pretty much have no idea what day or time a show is on. I just watch shows whenever I have time.

But honestly, there really isn't much in the way of "water-cooler" TV anymore outside the big reality competition shows like Idol or Dancing. Beyond that I personally don't hear people talking much about TV shows that were on "last night". Most people I know have DVRs though and don't watch Live TV anymore.

Most of the shows we watch are still on the networks and we record them on my HTPC via my antenna in free glorious HD. It's just the "cable" shows we watch via Hulu, Netflix or channel web site.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"bonscott87" said:


> For me that hasn't been the case in over 10 years. I got my first DVR (Tivo) back in 2000. Since then I pretty much have no idea what day or time a show is on. I just watch shows whenever I have time.
> 
> But honestly, there really isn't much in the way of "water-cooler" TV anymore outside the big reality competition shows like Idol or Dancing. Beyond that I personally don't hear people talking much about TV shows that were on "last night". Most people I know have DVRs though and don't watch Live TV anymore.
> 
> Most of the shows we watch are still on the networks and we record them on my HTPC via my antenna in free glorious HD. It's just the "cable" shows we watch via Hulu, Netflix or channel web site.


Wow. Where do you work? Everyone talks about shows where I work. Big Bang Theory or 2.5 Men or The Office I make it a point to watch the ones that they talk about that night so I am in synch the next morning.


----------



## NOLANSKI (Apr 4, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Wow. Where do you work? Everyone talks about shows where I work. Big Bang Theory or 2.5 Men or The Office I make it a point to watch the ones that they talk about that night so I am in synch the next morning.


Echo THAT! Tony....


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

I guess people around here are strange then. Almost all have DVRs and most don't watch Live TV. Heck, several don't even have cable/sat just like me. IPTV baby! Then again I do work in IT and most "regular" people I deal with aren't talking TV, they want me to fix their computer problem. People I actually work with are usually talking about what they did in such and such game last night vs. TV. And before you ask, most of us are over the age of 35. 

But even when I get out of that environment and get to my circle of friends out at the bar or something they aren't talking about TV shows. Again, they have DVRs. They are mostly talking about sports or games. So the talk with be the Tigers game last night. They'll watch whatever network TV shows they recorded on a non baseball/football night.

Since this is pretty much the same across dozens of friends in 3 different circles (most not in IT) and been that way for 3-4 years I figured it's pretty much the norm now. I guess not.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

I always DVR shows that I want to watch and may end up watching them the next day or several days later. If you asked me which night they are shown live, I wouldn't even know.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Heck, several don't even have cable/sat just like me. IPTV baby!


I work with exactly one person who does not have cable or satellite. He is considered an oddball. Nor does he do IPTV. I know no one in non-forum life that does IPTV. Heck, I am the biggest streamer (mostly Netflix) that I know; and for the record, I know a lot of college students as well as a lot of people well over 35.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NOLANSKI said:


> Wow I didn't expect this thread to grow this much!
> 
> While I know IPTV is just in it's infancy and I did do my research (someone said I should have here) the content and picture quality just is not there yet. You really don't know about things until you try it them. I have a great display and I love HD. IPTV isn't there yet for me.


If you want great PQ, try streaming NetFlix content with a Samsung BD player. I use the Samsung 5500s, last time I looked on Amazon they were selling for $99, and the upscaling the 5500s do is something you have to experience to believe. Blows the Rokus and their ilk completely away. Even old 4:3 TV series are upscaled to 1080/60p and, as far as I know, there is no other device that upscales streaming content as well as the Sammys do for the price. I sold my three Rokus and gave away or sold three Panasonic BD65s after I saw how well the Sammys work. I'm not a big fan of Samsung devices, and the BD players do have some drawbacks, one of which is a poorly designed remote, but just for PQ, I don't think they can be beaten.

And they upscale standard DVDs very well too. So well that I rarely bother with BluRay discs anymore.

Rich


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Roku is a great replacement for premiums when used with Amazon or Netflix, but I would never consider it a replacement for a lot of cable shows/sports.

If Hulu Plus had all Hulu content, it would be closer, but never that close.

I have a Roku (used primarily for Netflix streaming and the occasional Amazon VOD), DirecTV HD DVR (sports and current programming) with NO PREMIUMS and an XBMC media box (used for digitized versions of all my movies, tv shows, music, photos and some streams).

I can watch anything I want to watch at any time. I don't feel I'm being ripped off by paying HBO, Starz, etc. for their version of what I want to watch. I wait for their original programming to come to Netflix streaming or DVD.

I love the Roku, but it cannot provide college sports. So the DVR's main purpose is sports. I'm ok with that.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

As far as water cooler buzz, it just has a new "second" question now. The first question is "do you watch show XYZ?" The second is "are you caught up?" or "did you see the last episode?"

My friends won't even discuss a game with me unless they know I've already watched the end of it (which might happen several hours later).


----------



## NOLANSKI (Apr 4, 2007)

DTV is back and the picture quality is stunning compared to IPTV.....very happy camper right now.


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

rich584 said:


> If you want great PQ, try streaming NetFlix content with a Samsung BD player. I use the Samsung 5500s, last time I looked on Amazon they were selling for $99, and the upscaling the 5500s do is something you have to experience to believe. Blows the Rokus and their ilk completely away. Even old 4:3 TV series are upscaled to 1080/60p and, as far as I know, there is no other device that upscales streaming content as well as the Sammys do for the price. I sold my three Rokus and gave away or sold three Panasonic BD65s after I saw how well the Sammys work. I'm not a big fan of Samsung devices, and the BD players do have some drawbacks, one of which is a poorly designed remote, but just for PQ, I don't think they can be beaten.
> 
> And they upscale standard DVDs very well too. So well that I rarely bother with BluRay discs anymore.
> 
> Rich


I want to personally thank you guys for talking me out of a Roku at least for the time being. I was thinking about going the BD player route anyway. At least that's a multi function device!

I'm not a Sammy fan either, but I might take a look at this.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mluntz said:


> I want to personally thank you guys for talking me out of a Roku at least for the time being. I was thinking about going the BD player route anyway. At least that's a multi function device!
> 
> I'm not a Sammy fan either, but I might take a look at this.


I was stunned when I tried the Sammy 5500 and compared it to the Panny BD65. I had bought a Sammy home theater system for the master bedroom that had a 5500 incorporated in it and I was still using the Panny BD65 when I thought I'd try the Sammy BD player. Stunningly better. And I'd been raving about the Panny BD65 up to that point. The BD65 is still better than a Roku.

Rich


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

roku xds does 1080p, older n1000 were 720p.
got both, love the xds.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

David MacLeod said:


> roku xds does 1080p, older n1000 were 720p.
> got both, love the xds.


The problem I had was that NetFlix didn't have much streaming HD content. The BD players upscale the NetFlix 720p content to 1080/60p. The difference is very noticeable. My older top of the line Rokus were also capable of taking a 1080p stream. NetFlix only streams that to the PS3s. The last time I checked.

Rich


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

yeah lot depends on content too.
and tv too actually.


----------



## rayik (Mar 30, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> I missed how you got an ESPN game every week?


I actually get 3 games a week - Sunday, Monday and Wednesday on ESPN3. Also mlb.com has a promotion of one free live game each day for the rest of the season.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

David MacLeod said:


> yeah lot depends on content too.
> and tv too actually.


I know I can get _30 Rock_ in 1080p and 5.1 sound on our PS3, doesn't seem to be a whole lot of other content in that format for streaming right now and, according to NetFlix, won't be for a while. They think it might take up to ten years to make a full transition to the streaming model that they are trying to build.

Rich


----------



## bnwrx (Dec 29, 2007)

rayik said:


> I actually get 3 games a week - Sunday, Monday and Wednesday on ESPN3. Also mlb.com has a promotion of one free live game each day for the rest of the season.


ESPN3 is only available on some IPs(why is that???!!!) so not everyone can rec'v it. My IP (Qwest) doesn't have it and no one in the immediate area has it. My XBOX could rec it but......Don't understand why ESPN only puts it on a few carriers...


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

bnwrx said:


> ESPN3 is only available on some IPs(why is that???!!!) so not everyone can rec'v it. My IP (Qwest) doesn't have it and no one in the immediate area has it. My XBOX could rec it but......Don't understand why ESPN only puts it on a few carriers...


Cause your provider has to pay ESPN.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

rayik said:


> I actually get 3 games a week - Sunday, Monday and Wednesday on ESPN3. Also mlb.com has a promotion of one free live game each day for the rest of the season.


I was talking about NFL games on ESPN. I don't think they are on ESPN3.


----------



## davidatl14 (Mar 24, 2006)

gregjones said:


> Roku is a great replacement for premiums when used with Amazon or Netflix, but I would never consider it a replacement for a lot of cable shows/sports.
> 
> If Hulu Plus had all Hulu content, it would be closer, but never that close.
> 
> ...


Agree wholeheartedly. Your description is exactly how I make use of my Roku's.


----------

