Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television

Roku Will Stop Offering Fox Channels To Users on February 1 (inputmag.com) 55

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Without giving users a justification, Roku just announced via mass email that after January 31, 2020, all Fox "standalone" channels with no longer be available on the service's streaming boxes or TVs equipped with its software. The email states that "You can still watch FOX channels through these services: FuboTV, Hulu + Live TV, SlingTV, YouTube TV and other live TV services," and goes on to add that "If you have a Roku TV, you may be able to receive FOX over the air with an antenna." The company hasn't issued an official public statement on the change, but according to its support account on Twitter and a statement from a company spokesperson, the move is triggered by the end of its distribution contract with Fox. It appears Roku and Fox are handling their contract negotiations in public view, with users' experience hanging in the balance. It's always possible Fox and Roku could come to an 11th hour agreement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Roku Will Stop Offering Fox Channels To Users on February 1 More

Roku Will Stop Offering Fox Channels To Users on February 1

Comments Filter:

  • Good riddance (FX movies and friends) (Score:4, Informative)

    by guacamole ( 24270 ) on Friday January 31, 2020 @10:33AM (#59674896)

    This streaming channel is filled with commercials, plus they tend to take down Fox TV shows older than X months. Have FX subscription and want to watch The Americans or Fargo? Forget it, they're not on FXNow.

  • Something about a Soup Bowl? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31, 2020 @10:34AM (#59674900)
    I'm not sure what this is all about, but some of my non-geek friends are telling me this is a big deal. Something about a bowl of soup being shown on February 2nd that everyone is interested in but that you can only get from Fox?

  • Will be back by game time end users will see high (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Friday January 31, 2020 @10:37AM (#59674914)

    Will be back by game time end users will see higher bill

  • Superbowl (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SlashdotOgre ( 739181 ) on Friday January 31, 2020 @10:42AM (#59674948) Journal

    I believe the Superbowl is planning to be aired in 4K for the first time on Fox streaming apps. I'm guessing Fox is using this as leverage to put the screws on Roku for negotiating. Should be interesting to see how this resolves.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday January 31, 2020 @10:50AM (#59674978)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Thank goodness I have some trustworthy and unbiased news sources available to me. Like RT and Al Jazeera.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kalpol ( 714519 )
        oh you know, just the PBS News Hour, still the best one on TV.

      • I find that Al Jazeera and BBC News actually give a different light to the topics at hand.
        All reporting is bias. However other countries news will show a unique bias that we are not familiar with.
        With out political climate it seems that every view point has a binary response to, because the citizenship has fell into 3 camps Liberals, Conservatives, or just don't care.
        Other countries can see America not by these political leanings, but by how our actions work.
        A New York City Republican may be more Liberal th

        • I also read a ton of foreign news about the US. The big thing about it isn't how they report the stories, per se, but that they report things that our media won't talk about and wants buried. I can see through the media bias but not when there was never a story in the first place because it got murdered. I (heart) the internet!

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shotgun ( 30919 )

            Wish I had mod points.

            This is the thing. It isn't the lies you hear, it's the truth that you don't hear that hurts.

        • I find that Al Jazeera and BBC News actually give a different light to the topics at hand...

          the English language version of NHK is fairly good too.

    • You can find a much more substantive and academically rigorous analysis of various news sources here. [adfontesmedia.com]

      BTW, Anderson Cooper is on CNN, not MSNBC.

      • Was there a difference between cnn and msnbc? Other than spelling, I mean.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        I'd like to know how you define rigorous.

        I picked a couple of the low ranking stories for quality. For the Daily Wire. One is about an abortion bill, and the story mostly just direct quotes. The other is about a campus sexual assault case, and the story is little more than list of evidence from court documents. The only way I could see these as being "low quality" is if the person doing the ranking didn't happen to like the data presented.

        As always, the most important thing to know about a critic is if

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        You're going to have to give a definition of what you mean by "rigorous".

        I picked a conservative sight, since they are usually the targets of bias, an chose several articles that they ranked as low quality. Every single one was well documented from sources such as court records.

        This article [dailywire.com] got an 18 out of 64 for quality.

        This one [dailywire.com] got a 19.

        This recitation of court records [dailywire.com] did get up to 20.

        I can't find any criteria they list for what they consider to be "quality". This doesn't seem to be very rigorous at

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shotgun ( 30919 )

          Wait. I found their methodology [adfontesmedia.com], though they did a good job of trying to hide it.

          According to the site, their "rating algorithm" is proprietary, and the rest is in fact the opinion of the readers they can get to provide feedback.

          Slashdot's moderation system is as "rigorous" as this is.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by PCeye ( 661091 )

      Seems to sum the networks up quite well. Too bad Roku can't stop offering all these useless channels instead of only dropping FOX.

    • Goddamn......where are my mod points when I need them? Awesome post!

  • and the channels are starting to fight back against this nonsense

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kalpol ( 714519 )
      Roku is taking a cut of ad money from channels streaming on Roku? That sounds complicated.

      • yes, you have to google it but apparently they have some backend plan to make money from ads viewed on their devices. if the apps don't pay, they get kicked off

      • They're double-dipping. If the Roku hardware were free and Roku were being paid by ad revenue from the channels they streamed, then you'd be correct. But they're charging you for the hardware, and they're charging streaming companies for the ads. If I bought and fully paid for the hardware, then it's mine, not Roku's. They're not entitled to any more money for what I do with it, like ISPs who charge you for service shouldn't be allowed to charge websites not to slow down their content, your car manufact
        • Yeah they are and that is disheartening to hear. I don't have a Roku anymore but I always rooted for them for two reasons.
          The first because they were neutral. Google, Apple, and Amazon have their own streaming hardware but due to them also having content of their own, certain restrictions apply. Intentional incompatibilities. The consumer suffers and ultimately has to purchase 2 or all 3 of these to see the same content at times. Roku doesn't/didn't have that since they aren't also a media giant.

          The other

  • Justification (Score:4, Interesting)

    by phalse phace ( 454635 ) on Friday January 31, 2020 @10:51AM (#59674984)

    Without giving users a justification . . . . but according to its support account on Twitter and a statement from a company spokesperson, the move is triggered by the end of its distribution contract with Fox.

    Claims no justification, then provides justification.

    SMH

  • Lol, and please stop telling me that communist China is the bad Apple.

  • Who has to rely on Roku for Fox channels? Can't be very many. No one should have ever given OTA broadcasters a single dime to provide them to users. By doing so, they're already massively assisting those broadcasters in reaching a wider audience without more powerful transmitters or repeaters. Roku, don't do it. Drop them if you must. I use Tablo and Roku, so obviously I don't care because Tablo relies on my antenna. But isn't it worth missing a few episodes of some mindless shows anyhow to push back on thi
  • It's still on the OTA channel, right. via rabbit ears? Oh the horror.
  • FUD. If you actually can read it states that the contract expires on Jan. 31 and "If not renewed" that they would be forced to drop it. Children
  • Errrr...back to the high seas me matie!

Slashdot Top Deals

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Close