# I'm tired of DIRECTV's Creative Ways of Digging into my pocket



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

I am amazed at how many ways DIRECTV has found to dig into my pocket to get more dollars out of it. I can understand a charge for the equipment protection plan. But the rest of these additional fees, really? Just because it's accepted doesn't make getting socked by this stuff every month a GOOD thing. A DVR fee? Really? Didn't I pay for the DVR fee, when I made the transaction that took that DVR off the shelf and put it into my home? And if that take off the shelf fee wasn't enough for you, then why didn't you charge me for what that DVR is actually worth? No, really! Charge me for what it is worth. I'm tired of this game! This monthly FEE stuff is slowly bleeding me to death. And the Whole Home DVR Service? Didn't I pay for that when they came into my house and charged me that extra fee for the work they had to do to install the new Whole Home equipment, when it first came out? Hey, Directv, I should be charging you for the right to come into MY home. My home has value. Let's call it the IN MY HOME FEE! I'll charge it to you every time you call my house or one of your workers steps foot inside my door. It's about time we turn this thing around. Further, Didn't I pay more for the DVR that you charge me monthly for rather than paying less for a non DVR receiver? And didn't I pay extra for my "Advanced HD Receiver" when I paid for it rather than a less expensive SD receiver? Your HD fee is really creative! Even T.V manufacturers could do it! They could charge me a monthly fee, because the t.v I just purchased can show HD programing. If they did, they'd be doing exactly what you are doing! It's insane! Hey, stop producing HD equipment, if you don't want me to use it! And don't I pay for the right to use your equipment by agreeing to stay with DIRECTV for two more years, when ever I add any additional equipment? And didn't I pay additionally for each TV, when I purchased those TV's? It amazes me that I am paying YOUR for the right to hook DIRECTV equipment up to each of MY TV's. I should charge you. My T.V's are as valuable as your Directv equipment! And your monthly fee is not just a one time fee either. You charge me for the PRIVILEGE of using my T.V's every single month! I am convinced. If DIRECTV could think of any other creative language to print on a piece of paper in order to charge me an additional fee, they would! Whoa! Big Bucks!! Big Big Bucks! I don't like it, and eventually, as my family begins to head off to college soon, I will be cutting way back on Directv, or even eliminating DIRECTV all together. And yes, I realize cable and other T.V programing providers do the same types of things. One thing is for sure. I will be putting a damper on this insanity one way or the other! I refuse to let programing distributers dig deeper and deeper into my wallet! 

*A Listing of DIRECTV's creative ways to make additional money from my account*

Additional TV - Charge
Additional TV - Charge
Additional TV - Charge
Advanced Receiver-HD -Charge
Advanced Receiver-DVR - Charge
DIRECTV Protection Plan - Charge
DIRECTV Whole-Home DVR Service - Charge"


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I do agree the fees are getting out of control.

But I would rather see them like this then added into the basepacks.

Cause face it , one way or another we are paying for it no matter how it looks.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Don't want the fees? Cancel the options. You don't need a DVR, you want it. You don't need Whole Home, you want it. etc...

They could do like some companies and include all the additional fees "hidden" in the base price and leave no options to add or drop the extra services.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

The OP raised some good points but has many options. Isn't that what's great about our technology today?

Can try cable.
Can try DISH.
Can try Telco's such as FIOS/Uverse depending where they live.

Or cut the cord and go OTA.
Digital TV doubled the channel selection since the Analog days, with great pictures.

And go online and use online providers for streaming.

If you are unhappy with the fees, there are so many options. Let us know what you choose.


----------



## kaminar (Mar 25, 2012)

Interesting mention..DirecTV is well aware that they (and others) are reaching the upper pricing limits for many subscribers. This is precisely why they are negotiating hard and lobbying for reductions or removal of TV broadcasting charges. I was hoping that Hulu purchase was going through, but alas..wondering if they'll snap up Aereo..or merge with Dish. No matter what happens, there does come a breaking point, and it's not far off, IMHO.

On the other hand, you do get a lot of value for the money..and you asked DirecTV to come into your home. DirecTV is required to charge a "viewing fee per television". It used to be "per receiver", but the FCC (maybe?) changed the required terminology. Works out to be the same thing. Based on your description..at the point of sale, there was never a lifetime DVR service charge or offer. It's always been a monthly charge. The hardware was never purchased (many customers qualify for free hardware, some do not). The hardware is leased, which means it must be returned upon disconnect or replacement within 20 days (approximate), or there is a charge.

Using your televisions does not require you to pay anyone (as explained above, OTA is free). It's all a choice..and as with most things, prices increase. Thankfully the value increases more than the price.

Good luck!

-=K=-


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Spike said:


> I am amazed at how many ways DIRECTV has found to dig into my pocket to get more dollars out of it. I can understand a charge for the equipment protection plan. But the rest of these additional fees, really? Just because it's accepted doesn't make getting socked by this stuff every month a GOOD thing. A DVR fee? Really? Didn't I pay for the DVR fee, when I made the transaction that took that DVR off the shelf and put it into my home? And if that take off the shelf fee wasn't enough for you, then why didn't you charge me for what that DVR is actually worth? No, really! Charge me for what it is worth. I'm tired of this game! This monthly FEE stuff is slowly bleeding me to death. And the Whole Home DVR Service? Didn't I pay for that when they came into my house and charged me that extra fee for the work they had to do to install the new Whole Home equipment, when it first came out? Hey, Directv, I should be charging you for the right to come into MY home. My home has value. Let's call it the IN MY HOME FEE! I'll charge it to you every time you call my house or one of your workers steps foot inside my door. It's about time we turn this thing around. Further, Didn't I pay more for the DVR that you charge me monthly for rather than paying less for a non DVR receiver? And didn't I pay extra for my "Advanced HD Receiver" when I paid for it rather than a less expensive SD receiver? Your HD fee is really creative! Even T.V manufacturers could do it! They could charge me a monthly fee, because the t.v I just purchased can show HD programing. If they did, they'd be doing exactly what you are doing! It's insane! Hey, stop producing HD equipment, if you don't want me to use it! And don't I pay for the right to use your equipment by agreeing to stay with DIRECTV for two more years, when ever I add any additional equipment? And didn't I pay additionally for each TV, when I purchased those TV's? It amazes me that I am paying YOUR for the right to hook DIRECTV equipment up to each of MY TV's. I should charge you. My T.V's are as valuable as your Directv equipment! And your monthly fee is not just a one time fee either. You charge me for the PRIVILEGE of using my T.V's every single month! I am convinced. If DIRECTV could think of any other creative language to print on a piece of paper in order to charge me an additional fee, they would! Whoa! Big Bucks!! Big Big Bucks! I don't like it, and eventually, as my family begins to head off to college soon, I will be cutting way back on Directv, or even eliminating DIRECTV all together. And yes, I realize cable and other T.V programing providers do the same types of things. One thing is for sure. I will be putting a damper on this insanity one way or the other! I refuse to let programing distributers dig deeper and deeper into my wallet!
> 
> *A Listing of DIRECTV's creative ways to make additional money from my account*
> 
> ...


What's insane is you complaining about something you "chose" to get involved with. You "chose" to sign up with DirecTV. You "chose" to have all those TV's on your account. You "chose" to have additional receivers on your account. You "chose" to have the Protection Plan. You "chose" to have Whole-Home DVR service. You still have choices. Lower you coverage with DirecTV. Choose another service provider. Use a OTA. You have yourself to blame for all those additional charges you're complaining about. :nono2:


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

Retentions will get many fees dropped. I refuse to pay for a second TV when I never watch them at the same time and the Client isn't a real receiver. I refuse to pay for HD - not even greedy Time Warner Cable does that! I pay $6 for 1 TV and $3 for something else. No other stupid fees and if they appear on my bill, bye bye Directv. 

Why are there commericals on pay TV if there are retrans fees etc? Greed sickens me.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

DirecTV's price to earnings ratio is, in my opinion, unremarkable at a little over 12. If they were literally sitting on a gold mine I'd have some money in the game.

Having said that, some of the programming providers seem to be either 'raking it in' or have no regard for constraining expenses.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

All companies are going the 'fee' route to grab extra $'s out of our pockets. Hell, TWC used to provide you the cable modem as part of the base monthly charge. They then decided to not only raise rates but now charge a monthly lease fee, which is now up to $5.95/month. Airlines started the trend now everyone is doing it.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

RAD said:


> All companies are going the 'fee' route to grab extra $'s out of our pockets. Hell, TWC used to provide you the cable modem as part of the base monthly charge. They then decided to not only raise rates but now charge a monthly lease fee, which is now up to $5.95/month. Airlines started the trend now everyone is doing it.


At least with TWC and BHN you have the option to buy your own equipment and avoid the 5.95 per month charge. Can't do that with D*.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

At least with TWC and BHN you have the option to buy your own equipment and avoid the 5.95 per month charge. Can't do that with D*.
are you referring to just the modem fee or the per TV fee. folks that have cable ready TVs and just need an access card still have to pay a monthly fee


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

kaminar said:


> The hardware was never purchased (many customers qualify for free hardware, some do not). The hardware is leased, which means it must be returned upon disconnect or replacement within 20 days (approximate), or there is a charge.


"Hardware was never purchased"??? Not true. Before DirecTV went to a leased-based business model (2006?), you bought the equipment. And even today, you can buy a receiver, but at a higher price.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

peds48 said:


> are you referring to just the modem fee or the per TV fee. folks that have cable ready TVs and just need an access card still have to pay a monthly fee


+1

I'm a little confused by Milkman's asymmetrical comparison here;

DIRECTV doesn't have a Cable internet service to even offer such an option for one to purchase their own cable modem.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> are you referring to just the modem fee or the per TV fee. folks that have cable ready TVs and just need an access card still have to pay a monthly fee


I know our cable company charges $5.95 per month for a cable card.

And you need a TV that accepts the cable card, or a Tivo. And we all know Tivo isn't free.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> "Hardware was never purchased"??? Not true. Before DirecTV went to a leased-based business model (2006?), you bought the equipment. And even today, you can buy a receiver, but at a higher price.


Even still you have to pay an Upfront lease fee, and then a monthly lease fee? I do agree this is a bit of a rip off.
I think Directv should do away with the upfront lease fees. Period!


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

While I am not a fan of fees, everyone seems to be forgetting that you pay the $6 whether you own or lease the receiver. It is a mirroring fee which for accounting reasons got relabeled a lease fee when receivers became leased. This is why your first receiver gets the lease fee refunded. Now for the other fees, whole home is nothing but a money grab. Other than the initial installation it does not cost DirecTV one penny to provide Whole Home. I understood HD fee in the beginning but now that is has become the defacto standard it should go away. It is like charging a "color" fee in 1970.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Even still you have to pay an Upfront lease fee, and then a monthly lease fee? I do agree this is a bit of a rip off.
> I think Directv should do away with the upfront lease fees. Period!


At $888 (Subscriber Acquisition Cost) for a new install, where do you expect that they're going to recover the cost? The revenue over the first two years is quite a bit less than that after substantial sign-up discounts.

If they weren't charging lease fees, the subscribers with only one receiver would be heavily subsidizing the subscribers with many HD DVRs. The sliding per-box fee (like many cable operators and DISH use) seems to be a much more equitable way of paying for what you're getting as those with lots of fancy boxes are paying for lots of fancy boxes.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

The only 2 fees I don't like is the lease or TV fee you pay each month even if you own the receiver, I understand if you get free equipment then pay the lease fee with 2 year commitment, and the HD fee shouldn't even be there since HD is now the norm, If you're going to charge HD then bring it down to $4 or $5 IMHO.
And the DVR fee is getting out of hand too, how it when from $7 to $8 now $10 is ridiculous. The only way to avoid this fees are to remove the DVR in the account, remove HD service also and only have 1 SD receiver in the account.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Even still you have to pay an Upfront lease fee, and then a monthly lease fee? I do agree this is a bit of a rip off.
> I think Directv should do away with the upfront lease fees. Period!


Although, and with the use of some creative language, I imagine DIRECTV would no doubt try to justifiably explain the upfront "lease fee" as strictly to cover the cost of the receiver equipment (it's hardware and the software development and support over its usage by the subscriber).

Whereas the monthly fee for the boxes are not really termed a "lease fee," but a programming "mirror fee" to each box beyond the first credited one for the convenience of being able to watch programing in multiple locations, ala cable's "additional outlet fee."

Now the monthly "Advanced DVR" fee, I find is much harder to justify than the above, but is likely to be explained by D* as the cost for providing you with advanced receiver functionality. recording, trick-play, LB, etc.., but that should certainly be covered in the upfront equipment "lease fee" and thus a money grab.

And I agree the WH fee is definitely in the same boat as the Advanced DVR fee and nothing but a money grab as well.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> At $888 (Subscriber Acquisition Cost) for a new install, where do you expect that they're going to recover the cost? The revenue over the first two years is quite a bit less than that after substantial sign-up discounts.


NOT MY PROBLEM! Raise your Minimum Subscription price, Raise ETF fees!
They would do this if they felt upfront cost were a problem.

At $29.99 required minimum subscribed price on a 24 month commitment Directv get $720 off the subscriber and gets their Receiver back when the customer is done.

It doesn't cost $888 to install one H25 receiver and run some coax.
I think that Subscriber price includes the cost of the receiver, even though they recirculate their receivers many many times.

I'm tired of hearing of Poor Directv and the amount of money they would lose.

When a company goes from 4 billion to 3 billion profit , NOT LOSS! a year its hard to feel bad.
When directv is Under par of total operation cost then talk to me about how hard free"leased" upfront equipment is hitting them.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

acostapimps said:


> The only 2 fees I don't like is the lease or TV fee you pay each month even if you own the receiver, I understand if you get free equipment then pay the lease fee with 2 year commitment, and the HD fee shouldn't even be there since HD is now the norm, If you're going to charge HD then bring it down to $4 or $5 IMHO.


HD costs DIRECTV a lot more money to provide from a bandwidth standpoint than SD so they can't really throw it in. DIRECTV has two slots (99W, 103W) of relatively new satellites (four or five) dominated by HD content versus one and few (11 transponders at 119W) for SD.

They presumably pay extra over and above the SD rights to get HD rights to programming.

Why should those who get along with SD subsidize those who must have HD?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

harsh said:


> HD costs DIRECTV a lot more money to provide from a bandwidth standpoint than SD so they can't really throw it in. DIRECTV has two slots (99W, 103W) of relatively new satellites (four or five) dominated by HD content versus one and few (11 transponders at 119W) for SD.
> 
> They presumably pay extra over and above the SD rights to get HD rights to programming.
> 
> Why should those who get along with SD subsidize those who must have HD?


Again Harsh Talk to us when Directv is showing NET Losses.

That means when the company is costing more to run then whats coming in. Not I made 5 bil last year and now I'm only making 4.

Sorry I had to go from $350,000 a year to $200,000 a year. Beause I have to *Lower my Profit*, or I'll be out of work.
I didn't lose $150,000 since I never had it in the first place.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

damondlt said:


> It doesn't cost $888 to install one H25 receiver and run some coax.


Nor do they get away with paying only $888 for a four-room Genie system installed. The $888 number comes from their Q2 2013 SEC filing as the _average_ cost of a new installation.


> I think that Subscriber price includes the cost of the receiver, even though they recirculate their receivers many many times.


How many cycles do you suppose the average box survives? I bet it isn't anywhere near "many" and instead is probably less than two cycles.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

harsh said:


> At $888 (Subscriber Acquisition Cost) for a new install,


OH since we're talking averages,

The Average Directv subscriber spends $93 per month on services.
That's over $2200 for the terms of the contract.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

DirecTV lost 50,000 plus subscribers in the US last year in this same quarter that it lost over 80,000 subscribers. The subscriber base in the US is falling. Lots of people giving up on pay TV and going back to their OTA and subscriptions like Netflix, etc.
In the quarterly report their profit margin is less than 10%. That is very low compared to other companies.

Having said that my bill is a lot more than I want to pay. I routinely call and ask what they can do to help lower my bill and usually get it reduced at least $25 per month to keep me under $125. If not I would be dropping some of the extras I can live without.
I have been with them since 1996. My bill was a fraction of what it is now.
Back then I had 2 SD receivers and a basic package, no DVR. Now I have a package just under the premier, HD service, 2 HD DVRs, HBO, Showtime, Starz and Encore.
When I came to DTV I had cut the cord with TWC because they raised my rate 3 times in a 12 month period and at that time I had not had a raise in 3 years.
We have Comcast Cable internet service and it costs us over $73 per month just for internet. If you call them and ask what they can do for you they usually offer to lower the speed of your service for a slightly smaller price per month.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

harsh said:


> Nor do they get away with paying only $888 for a four-room Genie system installed. The $888 number comes from their Q2 2013 SEC filing as the _average_ cost of a new installation.
> How many cycles do you suppose the average box survives? I bet it isn't anywhere near "many" and instead is probably less than two cycles.


And they are installing 4 room Genies daily to new customers , So your point is Moot!

Apparently its not hurting them cause they know in a year they will have made it back and then some!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Again Harsh Talk to us when Directv is showing NET Losses.


DIRECTV is in business to make money for their shareholders -- exclusively.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

harsh said:


> DIRECTV is in business to make money for their shareholders -- exclusively.


You are absolutely Right! 
100% spot on.

See we do agree! :righton:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

damondlt said:


> The Average Directv subscriber spends $93 per month on services.


The average DIRECTV subscriber pays $98.73/month


> That's over $2200 for the terms of the contract.


The new customer pays a whole lot less than the average customer. Discounts of over 50% in year one aren't extraordinary. Year two is a big shock but there are still some discounts.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

jimmie57 said:


> DirecTV lost 50,000 plus subscribers in the US last year in this same quarter that it lost over 80,000 subscribers. The subscriber base in the US is falling. Lots of people giving up on pay TV and going back to their OTA and subscriptions like Netflix, etc.
> In the quarterly report their profit margin is less than 10%. That is very low compared to other companies.


Because customer are tired of seeing big increases in fee's but yet don't see anything but more profit.

On one hand we got these providers, claiming oh "we have to raise your rates because of inflation", 
but yet they at the same time they are saying
"hey we need $10 but lets say $20 so we can make more money" That's BS!


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

My friend just got a bundle thru AT & T with internet and DirecTV service. She switched from Dish.
She has an HR44 and 1 client. She has the program package just under the premier. She got all the movie channels free for 3 months. Her total bill for the first year is under $100 per month for TV and internet.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

harsh said:


> The average DIRECTV subscriber pays $98.73/monthThe new customer pays a whole lot less than the average customer. Discounts of over 50% in year one aren't extraordinary. Year two is a big shock but there are still some discounts.


While I would agree with you on this in Directv favor, except New subscribers are less then 10 % of Directvs total customers.
Not very many getting these huge discounts.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jimmie57 said:


> Lots of people giving up on pay TV and going back to their OTA and subscriptions like Netflix, etc.


Rest assured that they're not giving up. They've likely shifted or quit so they can come back later to get new subscriber deals. Telco subscriptions are up in the 14-16% range.

OTA is not a long-term option for a pretty large majority. IPTV services are pretty thin and out of the picture for many who don't have fat pipes to the Internet. We hear accounts often of those that have experimented with cutting the cord and how they're not particularly satisfied.

Q2 is a pretty predictable quarter for lower numbers so it should not be taken as a sign of paradigm shift.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

jimmie57 said:


> My friend just got a bundle thru AT & T with internet and DirecTV service. She switched from Dish.
> She has an HR44 and 1 client. She has the program package just under the premier. She got all the movie channels free for 3 months. Her total bill for the first year is under $100 per month for TV and internet.


I got Uverse internet 12MPS and D* with one HDVR, two H25s, HD, whole home, and protection plan, with all the other incentives that come with it, at the same time, but not as a bundle. My bill was under $100. the first year. A year and a half later, I added a Genie so that gave me one extra receiver and my bill nearly doubled for both services together after the promotion period ended and price increases from D*. Your friends will also go sky High the 2nd year, depending on what speed internet she has.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I am surprised how many people are saying things like "I pay $100 a month for 24 moths, that more than covers the $800 it cost to sign me up" The great majority of that $100 goes to paying for the ongoing costs such as what they have to pay providers for programming, operating costs of uplink centers, etc, etc.


harsh said:


> DIRECTV is in business to make money for their shareholders -- exclusively.


While that is true at the most basic level, business in general (not just DirecTV) has made way too narrow a focus on that and has lost sight of the bigger picture that to be successful you need to provide a product people want, at an acceptable quality level, and at a price people are willing to pay. Granted in this discussion DirecTV is the middleman and it is the content providers that are missing the bigger picture but i see this in way too many businesses.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

At least for one thing they're giving me credits for HD fee,DVR fee and package discounts for the time being, no way would I want it at the $100 mark or I'll change to lesser priced package, But now im paying in the mid $70's price.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

longrider said:


> I am surprised how many people are saying things like "I pay $100 a month for 24 moths, that more than covers the $800 it cost to sign me up" The great majority of that $100 goes to paying for the ongoing costs such as what they have to pay providers for programming, operating costs of uplink centers, etc, etc.
> .


I am surprised that so many people think or imply that Directv is out this money!
Clearly they are making a truck load of money.!

Directv makes their prices and sets their prices to make money, Not break even or take a loss. Directv wouldn't make their minimum commitment agreement $29.99 if that meant they would be taking a loss.

They came up with this number for a reason!

Choice Extra wouldn't cost you $70.99 if it cost Directv $71 to provide it to each customer.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

peds48 said:


> are you referring to just the modem fee or the per TV fee. folks that have cable ready TVs and just need an access card still have to pay a monthly fee





HoTat2 said:


> +1
> 
> I'm a little confused by Milkman's asymmetrical comparison here;
> 
> DIRECTV doesn't have a Cable internet service to even offer such an option for one to purchase their own cable modem.


The argument was a little asymmetrical, but the BS leasing charge really gets under my skin. If I pay $200.00 for a receiver I should NOT have to pay the stupid $6.00 per month charge. If I pay nothing for the receiver, I totally get it - I just don't like the idea of being double charged.

What TWC/BHN does with the modem charge is exactly how other providers should handle the per month charge. Pay per month forever OR buy your own and get no charge. To get both is ridiculous.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I am surprised that so many people think or imply that Directv is out this money!
> Clearly they are making a truck load of money.!
> 
> Directv makes their prices and sets their prices to make money, Not break even or take a loss. Directv wouldn't make their minimum commitment agreement $29.99 if that meant they would be taking a loss.
> ...


I think we are saying the same thing just from different perspectives. DirecTV absolutely is profitable but that $100 a month is not in any way all profit. These numbers are straight from DirecTVs financial statement: 60% of gross income goes to COGS, what they pay for the programming plus I would guess a lot of the cost of running uplink centers and installation goes there. 25% goes to the cost of running the business. The is leaves 15% for profit and taxes take a third of that so only 10% is actually profit. In other words you could take out all profit and your $100 bill would only go down to $85


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> OTA is not a long-term option for a pretty large majority. IPTV services are pretty thin and out of the picture for many who don't have fat pipes to the Internet. We hear accounts often of those that have experimented with cutting the cord and how they're not particularly satisfied.


OTA won't appeal to a majority. But it is appealing to far more each year.

-------
August 6, 2013, 8:14 p.m. ET

CBS-Time Warner Cable Dispute Shows an Industry Unaware of Reality

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323420604578652271175622986.html

It was a mere coincidence that news of the Post sale broke right after Mr. Britt had sent his latest missive to Mr. Moonves in a months-long squabble over money. But the timing highlighted the essence of what another cable executive, Jim Dolan of Cablevision Systems Corp., CVC +0.67% was quoted saying Monday: The pay-TV industry is in a bubble. And it remains perilously out of touch.
...............

But as Messrs. Dolan and Ergen have acknowledged, these arrangements aren't sustainable. Younger people watch what they want online, making the idea of cable TV less appealing. The percentage of people age 13 to 33 subscribing to pay TV fell to 76% this June from 85% in June 2010, a new study by research firm GfK found.

"Cord cutting used to be an urban myth. It isn't any more," said cable analyst Craig Moffett in a report Tuesday.
-------

How profitable is DTV? Anyone who crunches numbers will tell you that an operating margin of 20% or more is exceptional.

From its 2Q13 earnings report, DTV reported an EBIT margin of 20.9%. Its EBITDA margin is 27.8%. (FOR DTV US OPERATIONS)

Up until one decade ago, The Washington Post once had similar margins, with an EBIT margin of 25%, sustained, year after year. As Buffet said, owning a newspaper was having a license to print money.

Today, its operating margin is 2%.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

longrider said:


> These numbers are straight from DirecTVs financial statement: 60% of gross income goes to COGS, what they pay for the programming plus I would guess a lot of the cost of running uplink centers and installation goes there. 25% goes to the cost of running the business. The is leaves 15% for profit and taxes take a third of that so only 10% is actually profit.


I suspect the 25% cost of running the business includes all hardware/software development and operation, both uplinks and receivers. As well as customer service, sales, marketing, general operations, etc, etc. If it doesn't then they are incompetent.

The biggest bite is the programming. The very thing that has been a rapidly increasing cost for some time. A mostly uncontrollable cost in the current climate. An unjustifiable cost IMO. Something has to give - either DirecTV and/or customers need more leverage on this.

The government needs to step in and restore balance in the market.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

No, please, no Gov't. intervention. Yes on righting inequities that they caused, but heavens! Washington running our TV services?? NO! We'd never have* Breaking Bad* if that were the case. And, and and....


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

When the cost gets to high more will drop the service and thats when changes will start to happen. TWC and ATT UVerce here are about the same in cost as Directv and have add on chages also so the only choice is to call and ask for a discounts or drop the service. TV service is not needed to live like food and housing.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Government intervention is the last thing I want. While it could control costs it would definitely control content and that would destroy it.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

This discussion made me study DirecTVs financials a little closer and while their Income Statement is decent their Balance Sheet looks terrible. Over the past 5 years they have wiped out almost 10B of equity, while this is partly due to depreciation (a 'paper' expense in that no money actually left the company) the long term debt has more than tripled in 5 years. While it is great to see that they are willing to invest for the future this trend has to turn around. They unfortunately are at a point that any attempts to increase revenue will be ineffective in that any increase in ARPU will be cancelled out by the net loss of customers.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Depreciation, etc., doesn't "wipe out" equity. Shareholder's Equity has increased over the last three years, as has Net Income.

Indeed they are more leveraged than before but that alone isn't cause for concern, but as you mentioned, ARPU and maintaining or increasing those units will be key.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I may have used the wrong term as this is not my area of expertise but from their financial statement http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/dtv/financials/balance-sheet shareholder equity has gone from <194M> in 2010 to <5.43B> in 2012 and on the asset side the depreciation is subtracting from the value of the assets


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

It looks to me as though DIRECTV has made major buybacks of their common stock. 
Depreciation occurs whether it's recognized on the Income Statement (and hence the Balance Sheet) or not. It's a book entry, usually a tax-deduction.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

No, please, no Gov't. intervention. Yes on righting inequities that they caused, but heavens! Washington running our TV services?? NO! We'd never have Breaking Bad if that were the case. And, and and....


I agree that the government has other things to concern itself with but as far as the government killing quality TV, try to tell that to the BBC. I find myself watching more and more BBC originating programs every year and we get more of them (as well as a large number of successful shows going as far back as All in the Family were actually conceived under "government control" in Great Britain). 

Of course, our government has a way of screwing things up uniquely.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Spike said:


> Additional TV - Charge
> Additional TV - Charge
> Additional TV - Charge
> Advanced Receiver-HD -Charge
> ...


I'm confused here. The protection plan is a complete waste of $$$, you don't need that. Unless you constantly bug DTV with issues and you're a good customer, theyll generally fix stuff for free.

Whole Home DVR, yeah, thats only $3, but also a waste of $$$. Just record it on the TV you plan to watch it on. Or walk over to your main TV.

I'm more pissed off on the more ridiculous charges. Like the $2 I pay for "regional sports fee". I have HONESTLY (and I'm not exagerrating here) NEVER watched a sports game on TV. Not even once. Not even the olympics. Sports just bore me. Yet I pay $2 a month for them.

The $10 for HD is also ridiculous. Dish gives it out for free. So do most other providers. Yet, I have to call in every 6 months to get a credit. Yeah, I'm getting a credit, but I'd rather not have to call in and get it. I've been with DTV since 2002 and have always paid my bill, yet some newbie comes in and gets free HD for life? yeah, I'm gonna complain.

$10 / month for the HD DVR is also a bit crazy. I already paid for the box.

I'm betting it doesn't cost DTV $10/month/household to get the guide info.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I dropped the Protection plan, as I too think its a money grab.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

AT&T charges $35.00 to "mirror" my data plan to my 2nd and 3rd iPhone, but yet no one "complains"


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

AT&T charges $35.00 to "mirror" my data plan to my 2nd and 3rd iPhone, but yet no one "complains"


It's all in the packaging. Call it a "family plan" and up the price.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

It's all in the packaging. Call it a "family plan" and up the price.
SO is a good thing that DirecTV only charges $6.00 per receiver


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

peds48 said:


> AT&T charges $35.00 to "mirror" my data plan to my 2nd and 3rd iPhone, but yet no one "complains"


There are other companies out there currently that are addressing this issue to the point that people are switching and saving money. But that is the subject for a different type of web site.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

There certainly are ways that DirecTV could really try for a money grab, like not having the DVR fee per account. I honestly don't know of any carrier that doesn't charge a monthly fee for DVR. Tivo of course has their lifetime DVR, but you pay for that, and if the DVR fails after the warranty is expired, you lose it.

Could DirecTV include HD? Sure, but SD subscribers would feel that they are paying for something they don't use. DirecTV used to require Superfan to get HD Sunday Ticket, they dropped that several years ago.

All carriers have fees, everyone just has to decide which option is best for them. Fortunately, even for those in rural areas, there is more than one option.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

On the issue of "mirror fees" - pricing is not solely based on cost, but on value. If the programming DirecTV delivers to you has value (and I don't argue that the cost is high) then delivering it to multiple outlets instead of just one has incremental value. If they charged nothing, then they would be giving away value (a cardinal sin in the rules of capitaIism). DirecTV has valued this service at $6 per outlet. Others value their service at different, but roughly analogous, prices. The same applies for whole home DVR service and HD. The fact that all the providers, satellite and cable, have pretty much the same bottom line price once you net out all the services shows that the prices are fair. If they were not, some provider would come along and try to steal market share with a lower price. Dish Network tried that, and had to bring their prices into line with everyone else to make a profit.

As has been noted, the problem is not DirecTV or any other middleman provider, it is the cost of the content itself. There are many factors that drive this but chief among these is the cost of people. Sports content is so outrageously expensive because athletes are paid so outrageously. Entertainment costs are high because big name actors are paid obscene amounts of money. I'm not saying actors and athletes shouldn't take the money...they'd be fools to turn it down. But why are the teams and producers willing to pay so much? Because viewers and fans want the sports coverage, the movies and the TV shows.

So, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We continue to pay for access to an ever larger pool of entertainment and sports. As long as most people keep shelling out the money costs will not come down. The consumer ultimately controls pricing.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Diana C said:


> On the issue of "mirror fees" - pricing is not solely based on cost, but on value. If the programming DirecTV delivers to you has value (and I don't argue that the cost is high) then delivering it to multiple outlets instead of just one has incremental value. If they charged nothing, then they would be giving away value (a cardinal sin in the rules of capitaIism). DirecTV has valued this service at $6 per outlet. Others value their service at different, but roughly analogous, prices. The same applies for whole home DVR service and HD. The fact that all the providers, satellite and cable, have pretty much the same bottom line price once you net out all the services shows that the prices are fair. If they were not, some provider would come along and try to steal market share with a lower price. Dish Network tried that, and had to bring their prices into line with everyone else to make a profit.
> 
> As has been noted, the problem is not DirecTV or any other middleman provider, it is the cost of the content itself. There are many factors that drive this but chief among these is the cost of people. Sports content is so outrageously expensive because athletes are paid so outrageously. Entertainment costs are high because big name actors are paid obscene amounts of money. I'm not saying actors and athletes shouldn't take the money...they'd be fools to turn it down. But why are the teams and producers willing to pay so much? Because viewers and fans want the sports coverage, the movies and the TV shows.
> 
> So, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We continue to pay for access to an ever larger pool of entertainment and sports. As long as most people keep shelling out the money costs will not come down. The consumer ultimately controls pricing.


Well said. :righton:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Agree. Pricing in these markets is based mostly on value, not cost. Grocery stores run off costs, by and large. 

I do wonder what will be the lever that brings down costs of sports- and team values, which I think are based mostly on TV and Gate revenues- If we consumers balk, then ad revenues fall, the value of TV contracts falls, distributors don't have to pay as much, and the poor little athletes have to settle for a few millions instead of dozens....


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

longrider said:


> Government intervention is the last thing I want. While it could control costs it would definitely control content and that would destroy it.


Intervention doesn't have to be huge. Just preventing ESPN (for example) from forcing all subscribers to receive and pay for their channels would be a big improvement.



Diana C said:


> As has been noted, the problem is not DirecTV or any other middleman provider, it is the cost of the content itself. There are many factors that drive this but chief among these is the cost of people. Sports content is so outrageously expensive because athletes are paid so outrageously. Entertainment costs are high because big name actors are paid obscene amounts of money. I'm not saying actors and athletes shouldn't take the money...they'd be fools to turn it down. But why are the teams and producers willing to pay so much? Because viewers and fans want the sports coverage, the movies and the TV shows.
> 
> So, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We continue to pay for access to an ever larger pool of entertainment and sports. As long as most people keep shelling out the money costs will not come down. The consumer ultimately controls pricing.


The only control that the consumer has over sports cost is to not have a sat/cable service at all.

With the CBS and TWC spat we now see that the ESPN-style fleecing of the consumer is going to spread to everything. "locals" will become a package.

The TV industry is accelerating towards it's own demise. On the one hand we get more and more worthless content (like Honey Boo Boo, Lizard Lick Towing, etc) and good content is rapidly increasing in cost beyond it's value for most people.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Diana C said:


> Sports content is so outrageously expensive because athletes are paid so outrageously.


Athletes are paid so outrageously in large part due to ESPN. And that's because every PayTV subscriber has to pay ESPN 5.50 a month, even though 80% of subs never watch a sporting event. Without this subsidy from the NonSports Sub to the Sports Fanatic, ESPN would have to charge 30 dollars a month in order to honor their financial commitments to the sports leagues.

And since this scenario isn't viable, athletes' pay would immediately decline.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

unixguru said:


> Intervention doesn't have to be huge. Just preventing ESPN (for example) from forcing all subscribers to receive and pay for their channels would be a big improvement.
> 
> The only control that the consumer has over sports cost is to not have a sat/cable service at all.
> 
> ...


The problem though is that the round-robin blame game of finger pointing doesn't stop with providers like ESPN.

As they will no doubt complain just as vehement and passionately before congress that they are the ones being fleeced by the sports teams demanding ever higher prices for broadcasting rights to their games and therefore need this additional revenue from having them placed in the base packages of the various distributors.

There aren't enough sports viewers to sustain their operating costs with a optional sports tier model.

And of course the sports franchises will certainly argue with equal vehemence and passion to congress, that they have to charge these rates to cover the costs of operating their clubs.

So this vicious cycle of greed everywhere just never ends, and I agree is just heading toward its own demise for sports and most all other programming as well.


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

Diana C said:


> On the issue of "mirror fees" - pricing is not solely based on cost, but on value. If the programming DirecTV delivers to you has value (and I don't argue that the cost is high) then delivering it to multiple outlets instead of just one has incremental value.


Where they "would" run into a problem is when we the consumers don't place a value on what they place a value on! And I for one do not value their mirroring fees. Place a price on the programming content and let me purchase the hardware to watch it. Force them to "Cost provide" and not "Value provide." If we, as the consumer have the power, I say exercise it and make them deliver what we want to use. If they don't like it, let the industry restructure itself into something new. The entire broadcast industry may very well be slowly transforming anyway. Look, even the head of Directv is talking about a possible merger with Dishnetwork (yes, I know. We've heard that before). With the internet's impact on viewing options plus other programming venues, how can this industry stay as it is long term anyway? I, personally, doubt that it will. Let me put it this way. Is it easier to string coax through a house or to install a wireless router for the whole house?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Many folks, the majority here, don't want to watch much on little screens and low resolution. Yes, the tide is shifting on that as more folks die and younger viewers come into the market, the latter being used to and o.k. with computer monitor viewing. (Or those who have major setups with broadband-> TV.... but how many get 1920 pixels?


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

I stream 1080p to my television all the time.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

PCampbell said:


> When the cost gets to high more will drop the service and thats when changes will start to happen. TWC and ATT UVerce here are about the same in cost as Directv and have add on chages also so the only choice is to call and ask for a discounts or drop the service. TV service is not needed to live like food and housing.


One thing to remember with uverse, the number of streams (the number of concurrent shows being watched) you get are dependent on the distance you are from the vrad AND you only get one DVR with pathetic storage space

I have 13 tuners available (Genie + 4 dvrs w/ 1tb externals on all), when the Uverse people call me or stop me in a store, I point that out to them the 13 recordings and 5TB of storage then just shut up and turn away. with 5 kids, my wife, myself and a foreign exchange student sometimes 13 tuners are not enough


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> I'm confused here. The protection plan is a complete waste of $$$, you don't need that. Unless you constantly bug DTV with issues and you're a good customer, theyll generally fix stuff for free.
> 
> Whole Home DVR, yeah, thats only $3, but also a waste of $$$. Just record it on the TV you plan to watch it on. Or walk over to your main TV.
> 
> ...


Sorry the PP is not "a complete waste of $$" or the genie and the 4 dvr's I have the only one that is leased is the genie, without the PP I have to get a leased one to replace my owned units, three have been replaced over the years. Something that is called a "waste of money" is in the eye of the end users, just because you think it is, does not mean other don't. Just like I take the protection plan out on any big ticket appliance or tv, have won more then not when the 4th repair was called in or the unit was deemed not repairable, my 60 inch LG cost me 500.00 when the 4 1/2 year old 45 inch gave up the ghost under a protection plan and that was just because of the ghost for another 5 year protection plan.

You know, come back when DirecTV has price increases like my local sewer company - 15 to 20 percent a quarter, then complain about it, and they DO have to go through a regulation board hearing to get the increase to pass


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

You've had 3 DVRs die? What the heck are you doing to them? I've had a HR20 running forever. I've had to replace the fan in it twice and I upgraded the hard drive to a 1TB. Hard drive obviously not covered... but certainly replacing the fan myself is a lot cheaper then paying $8/month for the PP. Took me all of 5 mins.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Diana C said:


> As has been noted, the problem is not DirecTV or any other middleman provider, it is the cost of the content itself. There are many factors that drive this but chief among these is the cost of people. Sports content is so outrageously expensive because athletes are paid so outrageously. Entertainment costs are high because big name actors are paid obscene amounts of money. I'm not saying actors and athletes shouldn't take the money...they'd be fools to turn it down. But why are the teams and producers willing to pay so much? Because viewers and fans want the sports coverage, the movies and the TV shows.


Interesting perspective and one I largely agree with. However, you can't lay it all at the the feet of the content cost. If DirecTV were to not have live sports programming how much per month would a package such as Choice Plus cost? $30 $40? $50? Whatever it would be it would be more than the $7.99/month that Netflix charges. Or throw in a year of Amazon Prime (including Instant Streaming) and that's about $14.67/month for a LOT of content. (I consider the internet access a sunk cost, needed for other things.) DirecTV has substantial infrastructure charges that must be covered - same with Dish. These do not exist for Netflix (yes - they have their own infrastructure to deal with but theirs is not..ahem...rocket science).

If it's true that content costs so much because of the viewers and fans it will be interesting to see what happens as new models continue to develop. Netflix-original series got Emmy fourteen nominations - which sounds like it could lead to a cost increase.

To the OP - if you have high-speed internet I suggest you check out the combination of Roku, PlayOn/PlayLater, Netflix, and Amazon Prime (with Instant Streaming) as an alternative. If you are a big live sports fan it won't be sufficient. If not - it may well do.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Spike said:


> I stream 1080p to my television all the time.


OK, what programming (in general)? What is the source? What is the cost? Do you get sports via this method?


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

Laxguy, I stream with a Roku player and Apple TV. The Roku has Hulu, Amazon, MLB, & Netflix etc. I've been really happy with Amazon in particular. We are big Doctor Who fans. Amazon has a lot of episodes of that program. I'm looking at other Internet based content as well. The problem is, I'm only just learning what programs are provided by which streaming service. Once my daughter begins college, I plan on cutting way back on Directv/cable/or Uverse and increasing my streaming content. She has shows that are not available by way of streaming through the internet, so I am going to respect her viewing habits until she leaves. I'm also thinking about the possibility of putting up the old OTA antenna and using a TIVO in place of Directv's DVR service. I am also taking the advice of one of the posters here and learning about PlayOn. I've got a huge learning curve to overcome. I'm not sure where I'll end up in the end.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Sounds like you're on a nice journey! I've several Apple TVs, and like 'em. But they don't carry enough content that I want, mainly sports, news, new series, and movies- the latter I don't really know about, as I haven't done a comparison, but DIRECTV has plenty of film I haven't seen and would like to (or stuff I've seen and want to again.)

Netflix has made a good foray into new fields, but it remains to be seen if that'll spread. Fingers crossed.

Thanks for the reply....


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Tubaman-Z said:


> Interesting perspective and one I largely agree with. However, you can't lay it all at the the feet of the content cost. If DirecTV were to not have live sports programming how much per month would a package such as Choice Plus cost? $30 $40? $50? Whatever it would be it would be more than the $7.99/month that Netflix charges. Or throw in a year of Amazon Prime (including Instant Streaming) and that's about $14.67/month for a LOT of content. (I consider the internet access a sunk cost, needed for other things.)  DirecTV has substantial infrastructure charges that must be covered - same with Dish. These do not exist for Netflix (yes - they have their own infrastructure to deal with but theirs is not..ahem...rocket science).
> 
> If it's true that content costs so much because of the viewers and fans it will be interesting to see what happens as new models continue to develop. Netflix-original series got Emmy fourteen nominations - which sounds like it could lead to a cost increase.
> 
> To the OP - if you have high-speed internet I suggest you check out the combination of Roku, PlayOn/PlayLater, Netflix, and Amazon Prime (with Instant Streaming) as an alternative. If you are a big live sports fan it won't be sufficient. If not - it may well do.


Without sports programming, it is true, any programming tier would be less expensive. But without entertainment programming, sports programming would be less expensive. Blaming one genre of programming for the high cost of cable/satellite TV is an exercise in futility. If your bill is $100/month, roughly $40 of it is directly tied to the cost of content. Take out sports (ESPN, RSNs and a couple,of other channels) and the cost would drop about $15. But if someone wanted sports only, to compliment OTA and/or IPTV, then the cost for that person would drop $25. But all of that doesn't account for volume. Unbundling would not yield a 1:1 reduction in cost because the numbers of viewers would go down, and almost by definition, the ones that are left would be willing to pay more since they would be getting only what the really want. So, take out all the sports and your remaining entertainment channels would be about $8 cheaper. Your $100/month bill becomes $92/month, give or take a buck or two. Meanwhile the sports fan's bill goes from $100 to $88 or so.

The problem isn't confined to one channel or group of channels...it is across the board for EVERY channel and genre. ESPN gets a lot of attention because it is the single most expensive channel. But it also delivers the greatest value within the realm of sports programming because it is more densely packed than any other channel. Again, the value it provides is proportional to the cost. It is the costing model itself that is out of control.

Take any professional sport...since it's summer, let's take baseball, but this applies to all sports. The AVERAGE baseball salary is $3.2 million per year. The MINIMUM is $480,000. Multiply that by all the players on all the teams and you are talking big numbers. Now figure in the cost of all the other team employees, operating cost for the stadium, marketing, ticket sale processing, etc.. A baseball team needs to take in several billion dollars just to break even. So, they turn to TV rights as a source of revenue.

Meanwhile, from the fan's point of view, compared to the cost of a ticket, parking, snacks, and dealing with the guy behind you yelling obscenities at the players, $5/month for ESPN sounds like a bargain. This demand for baseball coverage leads ESPN to be willing to pay huge amounts of money to MLB because they know there are enough people willing to pay that $5 or $6 per month, and to demand basic tier inclusion because they know there are a lot of people that will watch one or two games a month, justifying the cost of the channel.

A similar analysis can be done for HBO, AMC, TNT, NBC or any other channel. The number of households willing to get off the escalator and cut the cord is simply not significant - at least not yet. Anyone that is unwilling to pay the cost of a bundled service can put up an antenna, subscribe to online coverage of most sports, and get movies and TV series from Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. Sure, your can't get everything that way...but that is the core issue. People WANT everything. And to get EVERYTHING, you have to pay for it. Until enough people decide that they don't really NEED to see every sporting event live in HD, and that they don't NEED to have 100 plus channels to choose from, the current system will keep going and keep making money and keep raising prices.

From the content providers' point of view, if they can get 90% of households to pay $100 per month or more, why disrupt the model, lower prices and cut profits just to get the other 10%? Until that 90% starts to seriously erode (down to 75% or so) there is no reason for anything to change.

But it IS in the hands of viewers to drive that 90% down. It is just that (so far) no one wants to go first. Instead we keep paying the cable or satellite bill and then go online to gripe about it.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> I'm confused here. The protection plan is a complete waste of $$$, you don't need that. Unless you constantly bug DTV with issues and you're a good customer, theyll generally fix stuff for free.
> 
> Whole Home DVR, yeah, thats only $3, but also a waste of $$$. Just record it on the TV you plan to watch it on. Or walk over to your main TV.
> 
> ...


Comcast has a HD fee and some other systems hide the HD fee in the box rent fees.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Diana C said:


> <snipped for brevity's sake>
> 
> From the content providers' point of view, if they can get 90% of households to pay $100 per month or more, why disrupt the model, lower prices and cut profits just to get the other 10%? Until that 90% starts to seriously erode (down to 75% or so) there is no reason for anything to change.
> 
> But it IS in the hands of viewers to drive that 90% down. It is just that (so far) no one wants to go first. Instead we keep paying the cable or satellite bill and then go online to gripe about it.


Fair points - I tend to forget that I've gotten to a point in my life where I not only don't need it all, I really don't want it all. "All" just tends to complicate my life  and add unnecessary cost.

I do wonder how much the existing industry is paying attention to the increasing number of viewers turning to alternative sources largely based on cost - or the future generation of viewers who are already getting most/all of their content online as that is "what they know". Our daughter is a 19 year old college sophomore. I can say with 90% certainty that on her own she will never pay for satellite or cable delivered content. That should scare the heck out of the existing industry.

http://money.msn.com/now/post--high-cable-prices-are-doing-what-netflix-alone-cant - This article discusses the increasing cost of "triple-play" packages whose price hikes have increased the cost of triple play by 20%, or $46 per month, since 2010. The average bill for those services in the U.S. is now more than $273 per month (deemed "unsustainable" by Marcquarie Capital analysts). Content is usually the largest part of the cost. While the article recognizes streaming as an alternative it also notes that streaming sources "...have finite content, few new shows and almost no sports. They're not a viable point-for-point alternative, especially with popular networks including HBO limiting their streaming content to cable or satellite subscribers." ("Finite" is somewhat relative in this context - there is more content on-line than I could - or should - consume in my remaining lifetime  )

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/05/cutting_the_chord_as_sports_br.html - This article is largely about unbundling but does hit on the impact of sports programming costs. "It's estimated that more than half of viewers' monthly cable TV costs are due to sports programming. Cable prices increased 3.3 percent over the past year and have steadily gone up through the years." is balanced with "More than one-third of consumers would cancel their pay TV service if they lost ESPN, the top cable channel for viewer loyalty, according to a 2012 survey by Lazard Capital Markets." Very telling (and concerning I would think to the existing industry) are the following excerpts:

"In 2012, 100.4 million homes received video from cable, satellite or telecommunication providers, according to the research firm SNL Kagan. That's 84.7 percent of all households, down from the peak of 87.3 percent in early 2010.
According to a recent report by the Toronto-based Convergence Consulting Group, an estimated 4.7 million households that previously paid for TV will have "cut the cord" and dropped pay TV by the end of 2013, up from 3.74 million in 2012."

"Earlier this year, for instance, Netflix's "House of Cards" was delivered over the Internet with no cable required. Netflix reported that customers watched four billion hours of the show's streaming video over three months, a figure that BTIG Research calculated would make Netflix the most-watched cable television network."

I believe that the increasing costs of the current delivery models (and the content behind them), the absolute ease of connecting a one-time cost device such as a Roku (or PS3 or Xbox or whatever), and increasing quality, availability, and knowledge of on-line content will force a significant shift as more consumers are (1) unwilling to pay more when wages aren't increasing AND (2) alter their viewing habits to what's available vs. needing to have "all access".

It will surely be interesting to see how all of this shakes out. Maybe we'll return to more ad driven revenue (fine with me if the content is free). But probably not like this:


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

Tubaman-Z said:


> I believe that the increasing costs of the current delivery models (and the content behind them), the absolute ease of connecting a one-time cost device such as a Roku (or use your PS3 or Xbox or whatever), and increasing quality, availability, and knowledge of on-line content will force a significant shift as more consumers are (1) unwilling to pay more when wages aren't increasing AND (2) alter their viewing habits to what's available vs. needing to have "all access".


Thank you so much for all of the research that you put into your post. And I really appreciate your final analysis posted above. Brilliant. And let me say this, I hope Directv and the other content providers are listening, because I truly believe long term change is in the air.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> You've had 3 DVRs die? What the heck are you doing to them? I've had a HR20 running forever. I've had to replace the fan in it twice and I upgraded the hard drive to a 1TB. Hard drive obviously not covered... but certainly replacing the fan myself is a lot cheaper then paying $8/month for the PP. Took me all of 5 mins.


1996 started with primestar the first was the original Tivo unit, then a R15 then a HR20. Not worth my free time to repair them myself. 8 bucks a month, can cover that by having one less cocktail at the bar, matter of perspective, my time is worth more then that.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> 1996 started with primestar the first was the original Tivo unit, then a R15 then a HR20. Not worth my free time to repair them myself. 8 bucks a month, can cover that by having one less cocktail at the bar, matter of perspective, my time is worth more then that.


You realize that you spent more then 5 minutes on it by going through the PP, right?  Calling up DTV, being put on hold, talking to the PP people who probably want you to "try stuff" like reset the box first or talk to tech support. Then you are without a box for a few days waiting for the new one to come. Then you lost all your recordings, season passes, etc. You also have to deal with shipping the new box back. Oh wait...I thought your time was valuable??? 

Going through the PP cost you 2 to 3 days of your free time vs. the 5 mins to replace the fan.

Also, 1996 was 17 yrs ago. Thats 204 months. At $8/mo or whatever it is, thats a cool $1632 you spent on the PP and you've used it a total of 3 times when you probably would have been eligible for free replacement anyways.

BTW, if you are a customer in good standing, they will usually waive the service charge and do everything for free regarding the dish, switches, etc.

Makes complete sense to me .


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Tubaman-Z said:


> I do wonder how much the existing industry is paying attention to the increasing number of viewers turning to alternative sources largely based on cost - or the future generation of viewers who are already getting most/all of their content online as that is "what they know". Our daughter is a 19 year old college sophomore. I can say with 90% certainty that on her own she will never pay for satellite or cable delivered content. That should scare the heck out of the existing industry.


My son is similar.

The TV industry will initially counter this loss of customers by increasing the prices for the rest of us. Everyone in the TV supply chain needs a certain amount of money, right? What happens if there is a 25% loss of customers and the remaining 75% pay 33% more?

TV consumption is like an addiction. In Minnesota they keep raising taxes on cigarettes and the number of consumers is slowly declining. There doesn't appear to be a breaking point at which large numbers will quit. Obviously it helps the state financially and hurts the tobacco companies. What would be the downside if tobacco companies were collecting all that money?

This won't stop until there is intervention to stop tying. ESPN, and the entire sports supply chain, (as an example) has to be made to negotiate with the customer directly.

The way things are today, if large numbers start cutting the cord then ESPN (example) will figure out a way to get the cable companies to collect money on internet service for them. They can simply say that every customer that gets bits from the cable company has to pay for ESPN. Doesn't matter if it's cable TV bits or internet bits. Comply or lose ESPN for everything. It's just business :shrug:


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

unixguru said:


> "...What happens if there is a 25% loss of customers and the remaining 75% pay 33% more?"


I believe that would simply accelerate the erosion of the pay TV customer base, causing further increase to the remaining customers, causing further erosion, etc.

Streaming content is a disruptive technology that will force change. Who would have ever thought that public pay phones or land lines in people's homes would go away? Cell phones were a disruptive change - the existing industry had to adapt or disappear. Who would have thought that Blockbuster would go bust? DVDs via mail and then via streaming were a disruptive change. What about film-based consumer cameras? I doubt that Kodak ever thought that they would be supplanted. It may be that TV industry costs will simply be passed along in a new manner - internet connection as you suggested, Netflix fees go to $45/month to cover their catalog access, whatever. Or there could be a large scale shake-up and the TV industry as it is today will be radically different in 20 years. I don't know what it will look like or what it will cost but I believe that it will be different. One could argue that the current model is too entrenched with too much consumer "addiction" to require change - that may be what the Big 3 Detroit automakers thought heading into the 1970's - before gas prices rose substantially and foreign manufacturers showed up with smaller, more fuel efficient cars. (Please, feel free to argue "apples and oranges"  )

<off topic>
Re: MN and tobacco taxes - I also live in MN, near Rochester. The state's perspective on tobacco is really two-faced. They raise taxes to ostensibly reduce the number of new consumers but also to raise substantial revenue for the state. If the number of tobacco consumers went to zero that would be terrible for state revenue. So - raise tobacco taxes but not beyond what the market will bear. It will be interesting to observe the effects of this latest round of increase - will a significant amount of out-of-state tobacco make its way to MN?
</off topic>


----------



## jeret (Apr 22, 2007)

Article -- Dish vs ESPN

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2013/august/espn-dish-standoff-could-be-on-the-horizon.html


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

I read that article with delight. I'm hoping that Dish does stick to their guns and Directv follows suit. It's getting over the top with the increased rates for certain programming. Last years Viacom blackout was one that I'd hoped Directv would have stood firm on a rate increase. I'm tired of increases, year after year, for programming that I never watch. I haven't watched ESPN in over 5 years, but I'm forced to pay for it. Ever since they lost the NHL rights, I've stayed away. Ala Carte is the only way to go!


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> You realize that you spent more then 5 minutes on it by going through the PP, right?  Calling up DTV, being put on hold, talking to the PP people who probably want you to "try stuff" like reset the box first or talk to tech support. Then you are without a box for a few days waiting for the new one to come. Then you lost all your recordings, season passes, etc. You also have to deal with shipping the new box back. Oh wait...I thought your time was valuable???
> 
> Going through the PP cost you 2 to 3 days of your free time vs. the 5 mins to replace the fan.
> 
> ...


bottom line - with the exception of the genie ALL my dvr's are owned outright, I prefer to keep them that way. Where exactly did I say I only used it 3 times, I have had 3 OWNED units replaced (bte all of them now are owned HR24's), have used them for problems with the dish, cabling, swim over the years, by the way you 1632.00 guesstimate is wrong, primestar did not have a protection plan. as far as losing recordings, don't really care, I tend to delete them right after I watch them, the kids have more recording scheduled then I do and theirs are easy sponge bob, my little pony, etc.

Makes complete sense to you for not having it, makes complete sense to me for having it, just different priorities, I can multitask when I am on the Bluetooth headset walking through the support tree, so 0 waste of time there, and the only waste of time is the 5 minutes it takes to unpack and plug in the replacement box, can reset the record lists while I am watching another show. also unless yours are owned I prefer not to violate the TOS of the company


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> You realize that you spent more then 5 minutes on it by going through the PP, right?  Calling up DTV, being put on hold, talking to the PP people who probably want you to "try stuff" like reset the box first or talk to tech support. Then you are without a box for a few days waiting for the new one to come. Then you lost all your recordings, season passes, etc. You also have to deal with shipping the new box back. Oh wait...I thought your time was valuable???
> 
> Going through the PP cost you 2 to 3 days of your free time vs. the 5 mins to replace the fan.
> 
> ...


Bottom line we shouldn't have to pay for rented equipment repairs. If after 2 years Directv wants to turn the equipment over as owned then sure, I'll pay the 8 per month then.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Bottom line we shouldn't have to pay for rented equipment repairs. If after 2 years Directv wants to turn the equipment over as owned then sure, I'll pay the 8 per month then.


You don't have to pay for leased receiver repairs. If your receiver dies it will be replaced. You don't need the PP for that.

Mike


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> You don't have to pay for leased receiver repairs. You don't need the PP for that.
> 
> Mike


Right , I didn't think so.


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

damondlt said:


> Right , I didn't think so.


Buy it or not, it's true. Any money you pay for a replacement receiver is shipping costs.

DIRECTV has the right to charge what ever they want for their services. If they want to charge the average user $2,000 a month that is their right. You also have your right as a consumer to take your business elsewhere. Don't like it don't buy it. TV it's not a necessity, it's entertainment and convenience. If the cost is too high use a different service or no service at all.


----------



## davidmg1 (Oct 22, 2002)

Guess the OP hasn't flown on an airline in a while.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

This thread brought something to mind the other day. The "advanced receiver" fee. My HR20 is by no means an "advanced receiver" anymore. Shouldn't I now be getting a credit for tolerating an obsolete receiver? An "obsolete equipment credit" should be issued instead to those of us who haven't jumped on the Genie bandwagon...... (which I got a letter the other day for, offering it for "free").


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> This thread brought something to mind the other day. The "advanced receiver" fee. My HR20 is by no means an "advanced receiver" anymore. Shouldn't I now be getting a credit for tolerating an obsolete receiver? An "obsolete equipment credit" should be issued instead to those of us who haven't jumped on the Genie bandwagon...... (which I got a letter the other day for, offering it for "free").


Totally agree as an HR20 is my only receiver. Don't they not even reclaim these anymore if a person was to cancel? Can't be that advanced then...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Totally agree as an HR20 is my only receiver. Don't they not even reclaim these anymore if a person was to cancel? Can't be that advanced then...
the HR20 is the only DVR with built in OTA tuners, this makes it "advanced" lol


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

DirecTV has just become much less valuable to me. Yesterday my son came out with his H21 and said I could take it, he didn't care to watch anymore. Wow, there goes 50% of the reason I still keep pay TV right there. Plus he represents the next generation, and he just totally dismissed pay TV.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> This thread brought something to mind the other day. The "advanced receiver" fee. My HR20 is by no means an "advanced receiver" anymore. Shouldn't I now be getting a credit for tolerating an obsolete receiver? An "obsolete equipment credit" should be issued instead to those of us who haven't jumped on the Genie bandwagon...... (which I got a letter the other day for, offering it for "free").


If the cable companies were to do that they'd go broke. 

I know a few people who'd take the HR20 over the 21-23 any day of week...

In my area DIRECTV is the cheapest option. Dish, Uverse, and Comcast want an arm & a leg (and a couple of teeth in the case of Comcast) to replicate what I get with DIRECTV...oddly my state is considering a luxury tax on satellite TV. Choosing the cheapest option in my area is a luxury? :scratchin

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> DirecTV has just become much less valuable to me. Yesterday my son came out with his H21 and said I could take it, he didn't care to watch anymore. Wow, there goes 50% of the reason I still keep pay TV right there. Plus he represents the next generation, and he just totally dismissed pay TV.


My daughter lives in the Boston area and is looking into streaming and OTA for her TV. It's turning out to not be the cheapest way to go either. Between Netflix, Hulu Plus, and an ISP it's turning out to be cheaper to get a cable/internet bundle. :shrug:

I've found the fees with the other providers are more than what I pay now so is DIRECTV's fee structure out of the ordinary? I don't think it is.

Mike


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

JeffBowser said:


> DirecTV has just become much less valuable to me. Yesterday my son came out with his H21 and said I could take it, he didn't care to watch anymore. Wow, there goes 50% of the reason I still keep pay TV right there. _*Plus he represents the next generation, and he just totally dismissed pay TV.*_


Not necessarily in your case, but in my experience the next generation steals(illegally downloads) anything they can in the digital format which is one of the only reason they dismiss pay tv....They watch and listen to plenty tv, movies, and music, but a high percentage of them steal it, not even bothering to pay for streaming services if they can torrent it.

The HR20 is as advanced as any other model outside of the Genie, and its still worlds faster than the 21-23 models...in most people's opinion's the HR20 is the second best non GEnie DVR out there, regardless of age.....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I dropped the Protection plan, as I too think its a money grab.


There was a time when I would have argued vehemently with you about your comment. Now, the PP is riddled with CSRs that don't have a clue and it's become virtually useless. The ONLY reason for having it is owned equipment. Without the PP, owned HRs that go south and require a replacement become leased HRs. Since I have 10 owned HRs, I have to have the PP. Other than that, I'd drop it.

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> This thread brought something to mind the other day. The "advanced receiver" fee. My HR20 is by no means an "advanced receiver" anymore. Shouldn't I now be getting a credit for tolerating an obsolete receiver? An "obsolete equipment credit" should be issued instead to those of us who haven't jumped on the Genie bandwagon...... (which I got a letter the other day for, offering it for "free").


As long as there are receivers like the D12, others will be "advanced". I don't know how many customers don't have a DVR, but do know the number with SD is not insignificant. Last year, one study said that overall, about 50% of subscribers to paid TV service had a DVR.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> You've had 3 DVRs die? What the heck are you doing to them? I've had a HR20 running forever. I've had to replace the fan in it twice and I upgraded the hard drive to a 1TB. Hard drive obviously not covered... but certainly replacing the fan myself is a lot cheaper then paying $8/month for the PP. Took me all of 5 mins.


3 died? That should surprise nobody. Since the advent of the HRs, I've had so many die on me that I've lost count. If I had to guess, I'd say that since 2006, over 80 HRs have entered my home. The death rate has slowed dramatically in the past couple years. I've still got one 20-700 with a 2TB in it that I've had for years, but I keep it for...I don't really know why.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Not necessarily in your case, but in my experience the next generation steals(illegally downloads) anything they can in the digital format which is one of the only reason they dismiss pay tv....They watch and listen to plenty tv, movies, and music, but a high percentage of them steal it, not even bothering to pay for streaming services if they can torrent it.
> 
> The HR20 is as advanced as any other model outside of the Genie, and its still worlds faster than the 21-23 models...in most people's opinion's the HR20 is the second best non GEnie DVR out there, regardless of age.....


Agreed. I was just playing with my last 20-700 the other day and was surprised at how fast it still is. If only they had refined and refined them and not introduced the dreadful 21 Series...

Rich


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

As I have been reading online about the many different T.V & Movie Viewing options out there through the internet, I am beginning to think that a possible combination of Netflix, Amazon Prime, & Hulu Plus might be the place to start. I also think that it might be wise to have one of the following options added to it for immediate airing----- OTA, or Cable, or Directv, or Dishnetwork, or AT&T Uverse at a greatly reduced cost than what we are currently paying. I'm going to have to do some more research, because the minute a person adds much beyond local networks and basic receivers the prices per package quickly go up with Cable, Directv, Dishnetwork, & Uverse. If a person only used Netflix, Amazon Prime, & Hulu Plus, their cost could potentially be significantly under $30 a month.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Spike said:


> As I have been reading online about the many different T.V & Movie Viewing options out there through the internet, I am beginning to think that a possible combination of Netflix, Amazon Prime, & Hulu Plus might be the place to start. I also think that it might be wise to have one of the following options added to it for immediate airing----- OTA, or Cable, or Directv, or Dishnetwork, or AT&T Uverse at a greatly reduced cost than what we are currently paying. I'm going to have to do some more research, because the minute a person adds much beyond local networks and basic receivers the prices per package quickly go up with Cable, Directv, Dishnetwork, & Uverse. If a person only used Netflix, Amazon Prime, & Hulu Plus, their cost could potentially be significantly under $30 a month.


I tried to go that way a year or so ago. I watch mostly NetFlix content and thought I'd sell all my HRs and just use streaming for viewing and figure out the easiest way to get the Yankees' games. My wife and son protested and I'm still here.

Rich


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I sell software for a living, my son and I have an understanding - we take nothing off the internet illegally, and license all software. Torrents are blocked at my firewall/proxy, period.

I realize other providers may or may not be cheaper. I'm talking about paying nothing, or next to nothing for just a very little bit. I don't like what's on TV much these days at all. The costs, and my son not caring either, are going to be the death knell for the little I do watch, as it is just not worth it. This is a bigger argument against the garbage spewing from content creators more than a smaller argument against DirecTV corporate.


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

Rich said:


> I tried to go that way a year or so ago. I watch mostly NetFlix content and thought I'd sell all my HRs and just use streaming for viewing and figure out the easiest way to get the Yankees' games. My wife and son protested and I'm still here.
> 
> Rich


Rich, Hmmmm? I'm wondering if the secret is finding out which streaming services provide the programs that everyone in the family watches. The big question then becomes what is the release date that would allow for streaming services for the programs that are airing today?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Spike said:


> Rich, Hmmmm? I'm wondering if the secret is finding out which streaming services provide the programs that everyone in the family watches. The big question then becomes what is the release date that would allow for streaming services for the programs that are airing today?


It wouldn't matter that much to me. NF and the other services have all the content you could want except for the sports packs. My family wants no part of my grand idea.

Rich


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

The achilles heel of all streaming services is bandwidth caps. Too many ISPs either charge outrageous "overage" fees or severely throttle performance after you cross a (frequently undisclosed) download limit. Watch a few hours of streaming video every day and it's not hard to hit the limit.

Of course, there are MANY households that would love to have this problem - they don't even have enough "unrestricted" bandwidth to stream anything. Reports of the impending death of linear TV are exaggerated.


Streaming is also no substitute for ESPN, your local RSNs, vertical sports channels, et.al. These channels will continue to command big fees until people stop watching them (which is why they want to be in the basic tier - if they are there, they get watched...a lot) and their ratings fall.


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

Diana C said:


> The achilles heel of all streaming services is bandwidth caps. Too many ISPs either charge outrageous "overage" fees or severely throttle performance after you cross a (frequently undisclosed) download limit. Watch a few hours of streaming video every day and it's not hard to hit the limit.
> 
> Of course, there are MANY households that would love to have this problem - they don't even have enough "unrestricted" bandwidth to stream anything. Reports of the impending death of linear TV are exaggerated.
> 
> Streaming is also no substitute for ESPN, your local RSNs, vertical sports channels, et.al. These channels will continue to command big fees until people stop watching them (which is why they want to be in the basic tier - if they are there, they get watched...a lot) and their ratings fall.


When Directv charged $300 a year for the NFL Sunday Ticket for 17 weeks of football, they cured me of my sports addiction. I'll watch Sports and I love Sports, but I refuse to let Sports rule my wallet any longer.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Pick any 100 random series crossing multiple genres and ask for a selection of over 1000 movies. 

If you take price out of the equation. 

There is no service that can compare to dtv or dish or cable or FIOS or uverse. Linear tv is far better and has more options and its unified interface is just easier than any possible options for streaming tv. It even integrates your locals for the majority if what people watch. 

Add in price 

Today streaming options are very segmented and if you get enough and are ok with multiple interfaces and using over the air then its semi viable. But if watch a lot
If sports it isn't. 

Add in time. 

Anyone thinking in the long run streaming will be cheaper when it can offer the full slate of options including sports under one platform are dreaming I think. By the time it's as easy as linear tv it will cost as much as linear tv does. 

But today if you don't care about sports other than what's offered over the air and you don't mind dealing with searching multiple platforms you can run with it today. 

Most people aren't ok with that today.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I've posted this before...

you have choices, you have options.

If you think that DIRECTV's average price of $3 a day is too high, you can get an antenna and get dozens of channels for free. Add a hulu plus subscription for $0.30 a day and you probably won't miss the DVR, unless you have to go to the bathroom during a live show.

I do think DIRECTV is a value-priced alternative, you get a month of content on over 200 channels for what it costs to take a family of 4 to a movie with McDonald's later. That's not bad.

As for pointing fingers, though, you won't get me to say that DIRECTV or any other pay-TV provider is at fault. I've been fortunate enough to be a little closer to the inside than most people, and let me tell you, it's the content providers. Disney/ABC/ESPN especially. When you talk about these guys asking for 400%, 500%, 600% increases over their previous contracts, that money has to come from somewhere.

Add to that sports. I've said it before, I'm as big a fan as anyone. But just the regular sports networks (in my case all the ESPNs, MLB, NBA, NFL, FSW, FSPT, CSNSW and TWCSN) are costing DIRECTV close to $30 a month to bring to me. COSTING, not charging. That's the pure contract cost, that doesn't include distribution, encoding, getting those birds up in the air, etc.

When you look at some of the deals that are being proposed, you have to wonder why DIRECTV doesn't charge $200 a month. Obviously they have some other deals that balance things out, but honestly they manage to provide a lot of content for the price DESPITE these contract issues.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Diana C said:


> The achilles heel of all streaming services is bandwidth caps. Too many ISPs either charge outrageous "overage" fees or severely throttle performance after you cross a (frequently undisclosed) download limit. Watch a few hours of streaming video every day and it's not hard to hit the limit.
> 
> Of course, there are MANY households that would love to have this problem - they don't even have enough "unrestricted" bandwidth to stream anything. Reports of the impending death of linear TV are exaggerated.
> 
> Streaming is also no substitute for ESPN, your local RSNs, vertical sports channels, et.al. These channels will continue to command big fees until people stop watching them (which is why they want to be in the basic tier - if they are there, they get watched...a lot) and their ratings fall.


Our cable company allows Unlimited from 1 AM to 5 PM, and 250GB Max during 5 PM and 1 Am.
I've never even been close to this during peak hours. My total monthly usage on average is about 100 GB, 160 was my max ever!
We have 2 rokus,2 tablets, Directv CCK, 2 computers, Smart TV , PS3 ,Wii, LG Blu ray with streaming, myself a wife and 2 kids. :righton:

So as far as usage unless you have Satellite or 4G LTE with their High price and crazy low Data allowance . I would guess most Cable, Fiber and DSL providers are unlimited or very high limits.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Frontier set their "acceptable use" for DSL at 5gb a month, but eventually dropped it after bad publicity. 


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

damondlt said:


> Our cable company allows Unlimited from 1 AM to 5 PM, and 250GB Max during 5 PM and 1 Am.
> I've never even been close to this during peak hours. My total monthly usage on average is about 100 GB, 160 was my max ever!
> We have 2 rokus,2 tablets, Directv CCK, 2 computers, Smart TV , PS3 ,Wii, LG Blu ray with streaming, myself a wife and 2 kids. :righton:
> 
> So as far as usage unless you have Satellite or 4G LTE with their High price and crazy low Data allowance . I would guess most Cable, Fiber and DSL providers are unlimited or very high limits.


Your usage sounds pretty light. I'm consistently running any where from 800 GB to 1 TB a month, and I live alone. Is that 100 - 160 GB including or not including your non peak hours?

The average file size for a TV show in 1080i is 2 GB, and 12 GB for a Movie in 1080i. When you factor in other data usage such as youtube, streaming music, internet browsing, and gaming....that 250 GB is way too small to support using ITV as your only platform.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

They are plenty of documentary shows on YouTube if you're into that, and everything you see on AMC you can see on Netflix anyway, But sports is what make people stay, And that is what's driving up cost, So there will be a point to if the prices keep rising then you would see a few cord cutters, And if people are held hostage so to speak with these negotiations about content, Then they will be fed up and either switch providers or cord cut completely, But that will be a hassle to the rest of us so we suck it up and either cut back or ask for credit, Don't you just love America.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inf0z said:


> Your usage sounds pretty light. I'm consistently running any where from 800 GB to 1 TB a month, and I live alone. Is that 100 - 160 GB including or not including your non peak hours?
> 
> The average file size for a TV show in 1080i is 2 GB, and 12 GB for a Movie in 1080i. When you factor in other data usage such as youtube, streaming music, internet browsing, and gaming....that 250 GB is way too small to support using ITV as your only platform.


Stop downloading high def porn! And as I said its unlimited 17 hours of the day.

And my 160 GB is total monthly.

Our usage is not that light for personal use.
You just happen you be the one on the excessive side.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/10/01/internet-data-cap/1595683/

Average home usage predicted for 2016 is only 84 GB
Also average HD movie only uses 2 and 5 GB. Not 12 , not sure where you pulled that insane number from.

*Netflix Movies (HD)*: These guys are around 3.8Mbit, which means it's about 3600MB for a 2 hour HD movie.
*Netflix Movies (SD)*: Each of these movies are around 500-700MB each, depending on the length of the movie.
*Netflix TV Shows (HD)*: A 30-minute TV show will be about 1500MB.
*Netflix TV Shows (SD)*: A 30-minute TV show will be about 400MB.

If you do the math, that means you can stream about 3 seasons of Entourage and 40 movies in HD. However, that's not to account for standard Internet usage, so with YouTube, Facebook, and all of the other things you and your household may use, that's looking to drop the number down to about 20 HD movies, which is still a substantial amount for most people.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Average home usage predicted for 2016 is only 84 GB
> Also average *COMPRESSED* HD movie only uses 2 and 5 GB. Not 12 , not sure where you pulled that insane number from.


If you torrent a movie that was ripped from a BR disk, it can easily be >10GB


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> If you torrent a movie that was ripped from a BR disk, it can easily be >10GB


Yea and me and just about everyone else on earth don't do that! :smoking:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

This is not a forum for discussion on torrents. Lets not go down that road. Discussion of torrents stops here.

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

inf0z said:


> _*Your usage sounds pretty light*_. I'm consistently running any where from *800 GB to 1 TB a month, and I live alone.* Is that 100 - 160 GB including or not including your non peak hours?
> 
> The average file size for a TV show in 1080i is 2 GB, and 12 GB for a Movie in 1080i. When you factor in other data usage such as youtube, streaming music, internet browsing, and gaming....that 250 GB is way too small to support using ITV as your only platform.


Actually your usage is extremely heavy...I stream, game, etc..all the time..and I dont even touch 250GB a month....those file sizes you mentioned are not for the streaming content...those are for downloads.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I've posted this before...
> 
> you have choices, you have options.


You are right. We do have options.

* As such, I am not interested in paying $6 - $8 for a PPV movie I have to watch in one day and then have it automatically expire. Back in the day when PPV movies were $3, that was a reasonable price. However, TODAY?? even $3 for a PPV is ridiculous when you can get a netflix subcription for $8/mo for unlimited movies. Or, if you are not morally opposed, you can get it all for free on the internet. I no longer buy PPV movies because of the absurd cost and 24 hr limitation.

* As such, I am not interested in paying $55 - $70+ for a PPV event. I did *occasionally* purchase PPV events when they were $15 to $35. As the price skyrocketed to $55+, I tapped out. The last PPV event I purchased was $39.99 and I considered that extravegant.

I'm not "cheap" mind you... I definitely overspend in other areas, but when I can get the same exact thing cheaper and/or for free, I'll go that route.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> You are right. We do have options.
> 
> * As such, I am not interested in paying $6 - $8 for a PPV movie I have to watch in one day and then have it automatically expire. Back in the day when PPV movies were $3, that was a reasonable price. However, TODAY?? even $3 for a PPV is ridiculous when you can get a netflix subcription for $8/mo for unlimited movies. Or, if you are not morally opposed, you can get it all for free on the internet. I no longer buy PPV movies because of the absurd cost and 24 hr limitation.
> 
> ...


You realize both of your examples are out of DirecTVs control, don't you? The 24 hr limit was imposed by the studios, not DirecTV Special event PPV prices are set by the programmer with only a small margin for DirecTV. I agree fights have gotten ridiculous, AFAIK they are the only thing hitting $50 - $60


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Our cable company allows Unlimited from 1 AM to 5 PM, and 250GB Max during 5 PM and 1 Am.
> I've never even been close to this during peak hours. My total monthly usage on average is about 100 GB, 160 was my max ever!
> We have 2 rokus,2 tablets, Directv CCK, 2 computers, Smart TV , PS3 ,Wii, LG Blu ray with streaming, myself a wife and 2 kids. :righton:
> 
> So as far as usage unless you have Satellite or 4G LTE with their High price and crazy low Data allowance . I would guess most Cable, Fiber and DSL providers are unlimited or very high limits.


cable company here limits

30/2 = 250 GB a month, exceed 4 months in a row and service is terminated
100/5 = 600GB a month, same termination policy


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

Well I've done my research. And if a person in my viewing area wants any current local programming at all whether it is through Directv, Dish Network, Cable, Uverse, etc., -- plus subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, and the list could go on, it doesn't take long before the cost of being creative gets you right back up to where a subscription to a single provider is at right now. I really wish this were not the case, but the reality is.. that is where things stand right now. The bottom line is, for me, there is no real inexpensive way to view current programing with locals outside of the antenna on the roof option, and using tivos for DVR's. I may do this later on, but for now, I hate to say this, but, I'm just as well off now with Directv than I would be if I were to make some creative changes. My future cost would be within $10 of where I am at right now per month. And that cost savings would hardly be worth the hassle of the switch. BUMMER!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

And the costs of all those alternatives is going to go up much faster over the next few years than Directv service will. Plus look at how scatter and how many different systems you would have to run.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> cable company here limits
> 
> 30/2 = 250 GB a month, exceed 4 months in a row and service is terminated
> 100/5 = 600GB a month, same termination policy


And ???


----------



## Contra (Aug 24, 2009)

Diana C said:


> On the issue of "mirror fees" - pricing is not solely based on cost, but on value. If the programming DirecTV delivers to you has value (and I don't argue that the cost is high) then delivering it to multiple outlets instead of just one has incremental value. If they charged nothing, then they would be giving away value (a cardinal sin in the rules of capitaIism). DirecTV has valued this service at $6 per outlet. Others value their service at different, but roughly analogous, prices.


A briefer way of saying this -- they charge mirroring fees because they can.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Contra said:


> A briefer way of saying this -- they charge mirroring fees because they can.


Wouldn't you?

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

I would...


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> And the costs of all those alternatives is going to go up much faster over the next few years than Directv service will. Plus look at how scatter and how many different systems you would have to run.


Not knowing what the future will hold, we can look at current prices for a 3 TV streaming/.OTA setup:

1 year of Amazon Prime - $80 annually (~$6.67/month)
Netflix streaming only - $8/month
PlayOn/PlayLater/PlayMark - $70 once (giving you Hulu, YouTube, and a variety of other content)
Mohu Leaf Antenna - $38 once
3 Roku 3 boxes - $296 once
3 Simple.TV boxes with lifetime guide service - $900 once
Broadband internet - sunk cost (assumed to also be used for other things)

One time cost: $1304
Ongoing monthly cost: $14.67

Presumed current monthly DirecTV cost (obviously YMMV): $120/month
Time to recover one time cost: 12.4 months

This assumes that your viewing choices don't dictate specific channels/programming that you can't get through an on-line method (most live sports for example). In my case I keep one D* DVR for the Twins and Big 10 Network, down from 4 DVRs. Is this as convenient as having a single DVR per TV? No. Is it currently more cost effective for my household? Yes.

While I can't address increased future costs, from my own experience I can state that my broadband provider (DSL via local telco) just upped my speed from 3 Mb to 4 Mb for no additional cost ($50/month) with no data caps.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> DirecTV has just become much less valuable to me. Yesterday my son came out with his H21 and said I could take it, he didn't care to watch anymore. Wow, there goes 50% of the reason I still keep pay TV right there. Plus he represents the next generation, and he just totally dismissed pay TV.


My daughter exactly. Roku with Netflix and Amazon Student Prime (which she has anyway for its other benefits) is how she watches what she wants. She is unlikely to ever subscribe to pay TV (no interest in sports).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Not knowing what the future will hold, we can look at current prices for a 3 TV streaming/.OTA setup:

1 year of Amazon Prime - $80 annually (~$6.67/month)
Netflix streaming only - $8/month
PlayOn/PlayLater/PlayMark - $70 once (giving you Hulu, YouTube, and a variety of other content)
Mohu Leaf Antenna - $38 once
3 Roku 3 boxes - $296 once
3 Simple.TV boxes with lifetime guide service - $900 once
Broadband internet - sunk cost (assumed to also be used for other things)

One time cost: $1304
Ongoing monthly cost: $14.67

Presumed current monthly DirecTV cost (obviously YMMV): $120/month
Time to recover one time cost: 12.4 months

This assumes that your viewing choices don't dictate specific channels/programming that you can't get through an on-line method (most live sports for example). In my case I keep one D* DVR for the Twins and Big 10 Network, down from 4 DVRs. Is this as convenient as having a single DVR per TV? No. Is it currently more cost effective for my household? Yes.

While I can't address increased future costs, from my own experience I can state that my broadband provider (DSL via local telco) just upped my speed from 3 Mb to 4 Mb for no additional cost ($50/month) with no data caps.


Lets look at Netflix alone. They are making hardly any money and haven't raised their rates in ages, yet they have recently signed multiple contracts worth billions more than they where paying before. Either they need another hundred million people to sign up or their rates will increase significantly for streaming very soon. Not by a dollar or two, but by double, triple, maybe even quadruple or more IMHO. I wouldn't be surprised if they come out with A tiered approach for streaming soon. However, unless their contracts are based on how many of each companies shows are actually streamed, that wont do it.There's just no other way for the p&l to work. 

Now start thinking about all those companies having to do the same thing because they have all bee signing and will be signing new deals. And Hulu will start charging for more content I bet since they didn't get sold.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Lets look at Netflix alone. They are making hardly any money and haven't raised their rates in ages, yet they have recently signed multiple contracts worth billions more than they where paying before. Either they need another hundred million people to sign up or their rates will increase significantly for streaming very soon. Not by a dollar or two, but by double, triple, maybe even quadruple or more IMHO. I wouldn't be surprised if they come out with A tiered approach for streaming soon. However, unless their contracts are based on how many of each companies shows are actually streamed, that wont do it.There's just no other way for the p&l to work.
> 
> Now start thinking about all those companies having to do the same thing because they have all bee signing and will be signing new deals. And Hulu will start charging for more content I bet since they didn't get sold.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


As I said, I was addressing only the current state of costs. Let's use your worst case example of Netflix going up by 4x (to $32/month) and assume that was the rate today.

One time cost: $1304
Ongoing monthly cost: $38.67

Presumed current monthly DirecTV cost (obviously YMMV): $120/month
Time to recover one time cost: 16 months (3.6 months longer)

It all depends on your viewing needs/desires. If what you want to view can be satisfied through on-line content (perhaps paired with OTA), I think it will be some time before those costs (incl. content costs and broadband access) meet or exceed current pay TV models, specifically DirecTV. FWIW - I don't plan to drop DirecTV entirely anytime in the near future due to my own desire for live sports coverage. And other than cost I am very satisfied with DirecTV. I have cut back to the Choice package with no premiums and dropped a number of DVRs from my account. Choices and options are good in the way that they can drive market competition.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Tubaman-Z said:


> As I said, I was addressing only the current state of costs. Let's use your worst case example of Netflix going up by 4x (to $32/month) and assume that was the rate today.
> 
> One time cost: $1304
> Ongoing monthly cost: $38.67
> ...


does you 38.,57 per month cost include the monthly re-occurring for your internet provider? What will happen when they start enforcing caps like numerous providers already had. provider here enforces a 250 gb cap for 30/2 and a 600 gb cap for 100/5


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

It is entertaining to read all these cost analysis, but see very few people consider to analyze simply watching less TV, period. Any real long term costs savings is going to come from simply changing your thinking about TV altogether.

*yes, I realize this isn't the forum for that attitude :rotfl:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> I would...


You, me and any sane company would.

Rich


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> does you 38.,57 per month cost include the monthly re-occurring for your internet provider? What will happen when they start enforcing caps like numerous providers already had. provider here enforces a 250 gb cap for 30/2 and a 600 gb cap for 100/5


In my original post on this subject (yesterday - 4 posts up from yours) I stated: "Broadband internet - sunk cost (assumed to also be used for other things)"

If/when broadband providers start to enforce caps (currently my DSL through my local telco has no cap) that has the possibility of changing the equation. I don't typically plan much for possible future changes of this nature (lumping pay television and internet costs in with utilities such as gas, electric, water, etc) - I focus on the present cost of the bill and what I can do to reduce it. Others may well choose to take a different view. I don't see a possible future cap as a reason to not extract as much as I can now for a lower cost.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> It is entertaining to read all these cost analysis, but see very few people consider to analyze simply watching less TV, period. Any real long term costs savings is going to come from simply changing your thinking about TV altogether.
> 
> *yes, I realize this isn't the forum for that attitude :rotfl:


+1 - Earlier in this thread someone mentioned their "grand plan" to reduce pay television costs - a plan that was vetoed by his larger household. I'd probably pursue a similar plan except that the rest of my household would also veto it. Free or one-time cost TV (OTA, PlayOn, Roku w/out NetFlix, Amazon, or Hulu+), reading, volunteering, exercise - there are lots of ways to consume less pay television.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tubaman-Z said:


> +1 - Earlier in this thread someone mentioned their "grand plan" to reduce pay television costs - a plan that was vetoed by his larger household. I'd probably pursue a similar plan except that the rest of my household would also veto it. Free or one-time cost TV (OTA, PlayOn, Roku w/out NetFlix, Amazon, or Hulu+), reading, volunteering, exercise - there are lots of ways to consume less pay television.


I guess that was me. My wife stays with a recently widowed friend once a week, so I was alone watching what I wanted to yesterday. First I watched the previous night's Giants' football game. Then, I switched to NetFlix and stayed on it until the Yankees' game had been recording for a couple hours. That's about what I do each day (aside from the football game). I've got 12 active HRs and a monthly bill over $200 and I simply don't watch D* all that much. I spend more time on this forum than I do (willingly) on D*.

Rich


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Rich said:


> I guess that was me. My wife stays with a recently widowed friend once a week, so I was alone watching what I wanted to yesterday. First I watched the previous night's Giants' football game. Then, I switched to NetFlix and stayed on it until the Yankees' game had been recording for a couple hours. That's about what I do each day (aside from the football game). I've got 12 active HRs and a monthly bill over $200 and I simply don't watch D* all that much. I spend more time on this forum than I do (willingly) on D*.
> 
> Rich


Yep - it was you. I remember the Jets avatar.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tubaman-Z said:


> Yep - it was you. I remember the Jets avatar.


That avatar will surely be gone Friday morning. I haven't seen a much more pitiful game than last week's Jets' game. I'll leave it up until they lose. I've been a Jets' fan since their inception and...well you know.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Lets look at Netflix alone. They are making hardly any money and haven't raised their rates in ages,


It was about <2 that they had the Netflix "scandal" when they raised their rates.....


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

They'll wait until they reach a critical mass and the price of streaming will go through the roof. They just haven't got there yet and you can bet Netflix and the same ilk will just realign what people are paying for cable or satellite. We are talking maximum profits here. Nobody goes into business to leave money on the table.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Tubaman-Z said:


> In my original post on this subject (yesterday - 4 posts up from yours) I stated: "Broadband internet - sunk cost (assumed to also be used for other things)"
> 
> If/when broadband providers start to enforce caps (currently my DSL through my local telco has no cap) that has the possibility of changing the equation. I don't typically plan much for possible future changes of this nature (lumping pay television and internet costs in with utilities such as gas, electric, water, etc) - I focus on the present cost of the bill and what I can do to reduce it. Others may well choose to take a different view. I don't see a possible future cap as a reason to not extract as much as I can now for a lower cost.


some cable companies are already enforcing caps, telcos are starting to phase out dsl. you might want to look to the future for tomorrow you may get a disconnect notice that your Telco is shutting down dsl


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> some cable companies are already enforcing caps, telcos are starting to phase out dsl. you might want to look to the future for tomorrow you may get a disconnect notice that your Telco is shutting down dsl


You're right - they could. But I live in a rural area where cable does not serve a significant portion of the population (too low a population density to string the wires) - so the choice is DSL or satellite internet. My telco has been expanding DSL service (speeds/coverage) over the past 2 years. They gave me a 33% bump in speed for free within the past 3 months. I'm not concerned - although I understand the issue you have raised is very real for many.

"wingrider" - Can I assume that means "Goldwing"? I ride an '82 GL1100. I call it the "Oldwing".


----------



## MrWindows (Oct 12, 2010)

Honestly, I'm waiting for CenturyLink Prism to become available in my area, which should reduce my bill quite a bit. I'm going to start looking hard at going to Amazon Prime/Netflix though, as I already have Prime. I do *a bit* of downloading, but right now I subscribe to all the premiums for the shows I like to watch. DirecTV does make it convenient versus stitching together a bunch of different services, but Home Servers are making it easier all the time.

I don't like having to pay the DVR fee, when I already paid a premium for the DVR box, but I can live with it.

I don't like having to pay for HD, even though it gets credited back, because when my credit back period is up and I don't call in to renew it, my bill will go up $10 that month. It's a PITA.

I think having to pay a WHDVR fee is ridiculous, especially since I run an 'unsupported' network.

I don't like not being able to upgrade my equipment at least every two years for free, because I happened to add another box 18 months ago and had my contract extended.

I don't like having to pay a per outlet fee, period. If I buy the box, I should be able to connect it up. If I choose to lease it, fine, but I should have the option to pay it one time or pay it monthly.

I don't like new subscribers getting a better deal and newer, free equipment when I've been a subscriber for many years.

I don't like having to pay for a bunch of sports programming I never use. A la carte now, please.

I want to be able to opt out of pay-per-view and home shopping channels.

Updating the program guide on 8 receivers is another PITA. I should be able to have more control via a centralized web browser management screen. It's 2013 for Christ's sake!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

MrWindows said:


> Honestly, I'm waiting for CenturyLink Prism to become available in my area, which should reduce my bill quite a bit. I'm going to start looking hard at going to Amazon Prime/Netflix though, as I already have Prime. I do *a bit* of downloading, but right now I subscribe to all the premiums for the shows I like to watch. DirecTV does make it convenient versus stitching together a bunch of different services, but Home Servers are making it easier all the time.
> 
> I don't like having to pay the DVR fee, when I already paid a premium for the DVR box, but I can live with it.
> 
> ...


Good luck finding that "perfect" provider. seems like you want all the bells and whistles free of charge....


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

MrWindows said:


> <snip>
> 
> I want to be able to opt out of pay-per-view and home shopping channels.
> 
> </snip>


You can't opt out but you can always customize your guide to not show them. Not perfect, but at least you don't have to look at them.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

MrWindows said:


> Honestly, I'm waiting for CenturyLink Prism to become available in my area, which should reduce my bill quite a bit. I'm going to start looking hard at going to Amazon Prime/Netflix though, as I already have Prime. I do *a bit* of downloading, but right now I subscribe to all the premiums for the shows I like to watch. DirecTV does make it convenient versus stitching together a bunch of different services, but Home Servers are making it easier all the time.
> 
> I don't like having to pay the DVR fee, when I already paid a premium for the DVR box, but I can live with it.
> 
> ...


Well, around here my cable company doesn't charge MRV HD or DVR fees. But they do charge 25 a month per cable dvr box. Get two and tell me which service is cheaper? I know that's not the same everywhere, but in my area, its just ridiculous. Add in the fact they only have 20 hours of hd recording ability and its a joke.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Tubaman-Z said:


> You're right - they could. But I live in a rural area where cable does not serve a significant portion of the population (too low a population density to string the wires) - so the choice is DSL or satellite internet. My telco has been expanding DSL service (speeds/coverage) over the past 2 years. They gave me a 33% bump in speed for free within the past 3 months. I'm not concerned - although I understand the issue you have raised is very real for many.
> 
> "wingrider" - Can I assume that means "Goldwing"? I ride an '82 GL1100. I call it the "Oldwing".


Bought my first in 1976 - a GL1000, currently on my 3rd a 2010 GL1800 with 105K on the clock waiting for the 2014's to show up. Doing the Iron Butt 1200 this weekend for the 6th time


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Well, around here my cable company doesn't charge MRV HD or DVR fees. But they do charge 25 a month per cable dvr box. Get two and tell me which service is cheaper? I know that's not the same everywhere, but in my area, its just ridiculous. Add in the fact they only have 20 hours of hd recording ability and its a joke.
Where do you think you Cable company hides these fees?


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Where do you think you Cable company hides these fees?


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


My point exactly. Every provider has them its just a matter of if they break it out. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> some cable companies are already enforcing caps, telcos are starting to phase out dsl. you might want to look to the future for tomorrow you may get a disconnect notice that your Telco is shutting down dsl


Just look at what Frontier tried with their DSL a few years ago...fortunately they couldn't take the heat and backed down.


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

A couple of things that would make greatly reducing Directv's role in my house difficult would be, we would have great difficulty in knowing what new shows were coming out and it would also be difficult to determine where to find the shows we would want. Although, I did see that Roku is now providing a unified search that looks for programs across platforms such as Netflix, Amazon, & Hulu Plus, which would really help. But the problems is still real. And the new program releases still would be difficult to know about. 

On the positive front: I really like what I'm seeing with Tivo's new Roamio DVR's. Although not having Amazon Prime on them is a huge negative. Still, tempting though.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> My point exactly. Every provider has them its just a matter of if they break it out.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


I think that deep down inside everyone knows you have to pay for what you get.
The thing about all these things being broken down in such detail kinda puts it in your face for you to look at all the time.
Remember the saying "Out of sight, Out of mind". If you don't see it you tend not to think and dwell on it.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

This past weekend I took one more step to weaning ourselves off expensive TV. I logged on to my account, dropped to the next to lowest package, dropped the HD Extra pack, and any other options I could find. That netted me almost $20 a month. I then was forced to call DirecTV because they STILL won't let you drop equipment online. I dropped a back room receiver, and when I was asked why by the rep, I told him I was simply paying too much money for TV and needed to cut back. He said "hold on, let me see what else I can do for you". Came back and wanted to know if I needed better internet service. I told him ATT didn't offer anything good in my neighborhood. He checked, agreed, and said "how about I offer you $20 off a month for the next 12 months". I couldn't believe what I just heard. I said I don't want to do anything that will generate a 2yr contract, and he said no strings, just $20.

Well, upshot is, that's nice. My bill is now $40 a month lower for at least a year and a phone call to DirecTV, for the first time in years for me, was something other that an exercise in pure frustration. So, chalk one up to a very friendly, native English speaking gentleman at DirecTV who single-handedly ensured I'd be a customer for one more year.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> <snip>
> Well, upshot is, that's nice. My bill is now $40 a month lower for at least a year and a phone call to DirecTV, for the first time in years for me, was something other that an exercise in pure frustration. So, chalk one up to a very friendly, native English speaking gentleman at DirecTV who single-handedly ensured I'd be a customer for one more year.
> </snip>


Nicely done Jeff. It's all about reviewing your needs and reducing your consumption to that level. There are quite a lot of savings to be had. Getting the $240/year kicker from D* was particularly nice.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Tubaman-Z said:


> Nicely done Jeff. It's all about reviewing your needs and reducing your consumption to that level. There are quite a lot of savings to be had. Getting the $240/year kicker from D* was particularly nice.


I lost three channels I frequented to some extent, one on which I even had a series record set: H2, Military, and NatGeoWild. Of course they're not gonna pull Oprah, or a shopping channel :nono2: but I do put my money where my mouth is, TV is not that important.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> I lost three channels I frequented to some extent, one on which I even had a series record set: H2, Military, and NatGeoWild. Of course they're not gonna pull Oprah, or a shopping channel :nono2: but I do put my money where my mouth is, TV is not that important.


+1. Lots of life to be lived beyond the tube..er...panel/projector/whatever.


----------



## ohpuckhead (Dec 15, 2007)

Spike said:


> I am amazed at how many ways DIRECTV has found to dig into my pocket to get more dollars out of it. I can understand a charge for the equipment protection plan. But the rest of these additional fees, really? Just because it's accepted doesn't make getting socked by this stuff every month a GOOD thing. A DVR fee? Really? Didn't I pay for the DVR fee, when I made the transaction that took that DVR off the shelf and put it into my home? And if that take off the shelf fee wasn't enough for you, then why didn't you charge me for what that DVR is actually worth? No, really! Charge me for what it is worth. I'm tired of this game! This monthly FEE stuff is slowly bleeding me to death. And the Whole Home DVR Service? Didn't I pay for that when they came into my house and charged me that extra fee for the work they had to do to install the new Whole Home equipment, when it first came out? Hey, Directv, I should be charging you for the right to come into MY home. My home has value. Let's call it the IN MY HOME FEE! I'll charge it to you every time you call my house or one of your workers steps foot inside my door. It's about time we turn this thing around. Further, Didn't I pay more for the DVR that you charge me monthly for rather than paying less for a non DVR receiver? And didn't I pay extra for my "Advanced HD Receiver" when I paid for it rather than a less expensive SD receiver? Your HD fee is really creative! Even T.V manufacturers could do it! They could charge me a monthly fee, because the t.v I just purchased can show HD programing. If they did, they'd be doing exactly what you are doing! It's insane! Hey, stop producing HD equipment, if you don't want me to use it! And don't I pay for the right to use your equipment by agreeing to stay with DIRECTV for two more years, when ever I add any additional equipment? And didn't I pay additionally for each TV, when I purchased those TV's? It amazes me that I am paying YOUR for the right to hook DIRECTV equipment up to each of MY TV's. I should charge you. My T.V's are as valuable as your Directv equipment! And your monthly fee is not just a one time fee either. You charge me for the PRIVILEGE of using my T.V's every single month! I am convinced. If DIRECTV could think of any other creative language to print on a piece of paper in order to charge me an additional fee, they would! Whoa! Big Bucks!! Big Big Bucks! I don't like it, and eventually, as my family begins to head off to college soon, I will be cutting way back on Directv, or even eliminating DIRECTV all together. And yes, I realize cable and other T.V programing providers do the same types of things. One thing is for sure. I will be putting a damper on this insanity one way or the other! I refuse to let programing distributers dig deeper and deeper into my wallet!
> 
> *A Listing of DIRECTV's creative ways to make additional money from my account*
> 
> ...


BEST POST EVER on any topic!!!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Let us know how it works out getting directv to pay you fees.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I think this topic is getting kinda old. Like a conversation that just keeps repeating itself. If you don't like the fees or the prices, don't pay them. If you didn't do your homework before you subscribed, that's nobody's fault but your own. If you can't afford it, that's your own fault.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

ohpuckhead said:


> BEST POST EVER on any topic!!!


If that's the best post you've ever seen...

Rich


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

That's a bit of a pompous thing to say.



Rich said:


> If you can't afford it, that's your own fault.
> 
> Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> That's a bit of a pompous thing to say.


Why? I don't buy anything I can't afford. I don't consider that pompous, I consider that kinda frugal.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Rich said:


> I think this topic is getting kinda old. Like a conversation that just keeps repeating itself. If you don't like the fees or the prices, don't pay them. If you didn't do your homework before you subscribed, that's nobody's fault but your own. If you can't afford it, that's your own fault.
> 
> Rich


Is that sort of like, if you don't like a thread, don't read it? If you keep reading a thread you don't like, it's your own fault. :grin:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Closed.

Mike


----------

