# Here Comes The Price Increase So AT&T Can Pay The For The Acquisition Of DirecTV



## john18 (Nov 21, 2006)

We hope you are enjoying your television service and want to thank you for your business. With DIRECTV now part of the AT&T family, we now have more opportunities to deliver an entertainment experience like no other.

Exceeding all your expectations is at the core of everything we do. And we understand that getting maximum value is a top priority, which is why we work diligently to keep costs under control. Due to higher costs of programming, an adjustment in the price of our programming packages is necessary. New rates will be in effect on January 28, 2016 as indicated at directv.com/2016pricing.

We are continuing to enhance your service to ensure DIRECTV continues to bring you the best entertainment experience. We are making more channels available for live streaming than ever before. Plus, you can watch the hottest shows and the latest blockbusters On Demand1 - any time, anywhere.2 We are also continuing to revolutionize the DVR space, giving you greater control over your content. With 72 Hour Rewind and Restart, if you missed a show, you can watch programs that aired up to 3 days ago whether you're watching TV at home or streaming in your hotel room.3 And DIRECTV is dedicated to setting the industry standard in 4K Ultra HD, which gives customers nearly four times the resolution of HD.4

Finally, we know that the best programming must be supported by the best customer service. From the most knowledgeable agents to live online chat, responding to your needs as efficiently as possible is part of what makes DIRECTV #1 in customer satisfaction over all other cable and satellite providers.5

We are grateful that you chose us to be your TV provider. As always, we are eager to earn your loyalty and prove you made the best decision.

On behalf of everyone at DIRECTV, I thank you for your business.

Sincerely,









Jamie Barton
Executive Vice President - Sales and Service
AT&T Services, Inc.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

This happens every years. Can't really blame AT&T for this one. You can thank the greedy stations and networks that demand more and more payment to carry their channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

$5 or less for most levels. I'd consider that typical for a year, with or without AT&T's purchase.
(Premier is an $8 increase.)

The 50c increase on the TV Fee might sting a little.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

litzdog911 said:


> This happens every years. Can't really blame AT&T for this one. You can thank the greedy stations and networks that demand more and more payment to carry their channels.


Exactly. Disney and ESPN are the biggest culprits.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Yup, typical yearly increase. Not the end of the world.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

3 increases or more ( some packages do not have the RSN fee ) .

1. Package Price Increase
2. Premium Channels Increase
3. Regional Sports Increase
4. TV fee Increase


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Guess my mind is a slow today, so somebody help me out ....

1) So what's an "All included Package?"

2) Got 6 DVRs here including a Genie on a grandfathered Premiere on the old $10.00 + $10.00 + $3.00 plan with the $10.00 DVR fee in there waived. So what are my price increases?

I already see that my RSN fee went up about another $1.00 .... sign ....


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

What does the TV fee mean? Fifty cents more per TV? Excluding the first on the account or what?


----------



## jpray72 (Dec 10, 2011)

Did you read the fine print included with TV Fee. Says all included packages have up to 4 TV receivers. Does that mean additional TV's would be five or more?


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

jpray72 said:


> Did you read the fine print included with TV Fee. Says all included packages have up to 4 TV receivers. Does that mean additional TV's would be five or more?


Seems about normal, I'm looking at $4-$6 extra now. Last year was about the same for XTRA. The TV fee went up by $0.50 last time as well. 2015 increase table


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'm a bit miffed that I will now have to pay $1.97 for an RSN fee for a part time HD channel.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> Guess my mind is a slow today, so somebody help me out ....
> 
> 1) So what's an "All included Package?"
> 
> ...


It may be like att uverse all in rates that have DVR, HD and up 4 boxes / tv as part of it. Also why is HBO going up when comcast lowed it's HBO to make it the same as HBO NOW?

upto 4 tv's makes it easyer to to combie the systems and can be done with out changes packages that are tieded to contracts.

Now does a home with 1 4K tv count as 2? or soon that will be just gateway box + mini tv box or RVU = 1 tv?


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

I wish Directv would unhook the regional sports channels from their packages. That way we can send a message to the greedy RSN's and pay them nothing. This RSN fee is ridiculous. We already pay to have their channel, so why do we pay twice? If I want to see my favorite team or sport, by buying the packages like Sunday Ticket, Center Ice or NBA Season pass, I will do so.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

JoeTheDragon said:


> It may be like att uverse all in rates that have DVR, HD and up 4 boxes / tv as part of it. Also why is HBO going up when comcast lowed it's HBO to make it the same as HBO NOW?
> 
> upto 4 tv's makes it easyer to to combie the systems and can be done with out changes packages that are tieded to contracts.
> 
> Now does a home with 1 4K tv count as 2? or soon that will be just gateway box + mini tv box or RVU = 1 tv?


Good question about HBO.

I could reach for guessing that it may have to do with more multiscreens carried.

It also may have to do with AT&T figuring most subscribers are not aware.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

PrinceLH said:


> I wish Directv would unhook the regional sports channels from their packages. That way we can send a message to the greedy RSN's and pay them nothing. This RSN fee is ridiculous. We already pay to have their channel, so why do we pay twice? If I want to see my favorite team or sport, by buying the packages like Sunday Ticket, Center Ice or NBA Season pass, I will do so.


What Lots of customers WANT. 
Put ALL Sports in their SEPARATE Package/Groups.
The RSN FEE is really ROBBERY !! You are correct, we pay TWICE. ??? WHY ??

You have the Logo on your post, You have any information about COZI TV ?
When are they going to ADD COZI-TV ?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

PrinceLH said:


> I wish Directv would unhook the regional sports channels from their packages. That way we can send a message to the greedy RSN's and pay them nothing. This RSN fee is ridiculous. We already pay to have their channel, so why do we pay twice? If I want to see my favorite team or sport, by buying the packages like Sunday Ticket, Center Ice or NBA Season pass, I will do so.


When a game is carried on your RSN, it is blacked out in NHLCI and NBALP, so if you didn't have your RSN you wouldn't be able to watch it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ragweed10 said:


> What Lots of customers WANT.
> Put ALL Sports in their SEPARATE Package/Groups.
> The RSN FEE is really ROBBERY !! You are correct, we pay TWICE. ??? WHY ??
> 
> ...


It's not robbery by separating it out. You also are not paying twice. If DIRECTV didn't itemize that line then they'd just have different price points in different markets like cable does now. No different in the end.


----------



## Yakuman (Sep 12, 2009)

Hollywood wants to squeeze blood from a stone. They want to make as much money as possible from satellite TV before the inevitable decline.


----------



## Yakuman (Sep 12, 2009)

PrinceLH said:


> I wish Directv would unhook the regional sports channels from their packages. That way we can send a message to the greedy RSN's and pay them nothing. This RSN fee is ridiculous. We already pay to have their channel, so why do we pay twice? If I want to see my favorite team or sport, by buying the packages like Sunday Ticket, Center Ice or NBA Season pass, I will do so.


If you don't want to pay the RSN fee, get the low end packages Family, Select, Entertainment or Preferred Xtra.

Select is the best value because you're not being forced to subsidize Monday Night Football.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Yakuman said:


> Hollywood wants to squeeze blood from a stone. They want to make as much money as possible from satellite TV before the inevitable decline.


Doing a good job of it too. ...

Anyway on my end, Premier pkg. days are numbered here ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> I'm a bit miffed that I will now have to pay $1.97 for an RSN fee for a part time HD channel.


Gladly trade places with yah ...

Now $4.93 here in the LA market, and the only team I care anything about, the Lakers, are a joke nowadays and unbearable to watch. 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Guess my mind is a slow today, so somebody help me out ....
> 
> 1) So what's an "All included Package?"


A DirecTV and internet bundle: "you'll get a Genie® HD DVR, up to 3 extra TV receivers, HD service, and a waived installation fee, all at an amazing price."
https://www.att.com/shop/bundles/internet-directv.html


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

Yakuman said:


> If you don't want to pay the RSN fee, get the low end packages Family, Select, Entertainment or Preferred Xtra.
> 
> Select is the best value because you're not being forced to subsidize Monday Night Football.


Going to have to look into the Preferred Xtra package. I'm right on the fence for cancelling since I don't watch sports and most channels now are nothing but commercials, oh and a few minutes of a reality show. Paying almost $120 for 2 tvs and no premiums. Streaming has come a long way since I first signed up and is a big contender.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

Fish_Stick said:


> Going to have to look into the Preferred Xtra package. I'm right on the fence for cancelling since I don't watch sports and most channels now are nothing but commercials, oh and a few minutes of a reality show. Paying almost $120 for 2 tvs and no premiums. Streaming has come a long way since I first signed up and is a big contender.


Can you Break Down the $ 120.00
Why do you want the Preferred Extra Package if you don't watch sports ?


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

ragweed10 said:


> Can you Break Down the $ 120.00
> Why do you want the Preferred Extra Package if you don't watch sports ?


Already have the Xtra since (of course) the few channels I do watch are included in that and the preferred xtra doesn't include the sports channels from what this thread says.

Not the nicest format but:

DIRECTV Monthly Charges
XTRA 77.99
DIRECTV Protection Plan 7.99 
Advanced Receiver-HD 10.00 
Advanced Receiver-DVR 10.00 
DIRECTV Whole-Home DVR Service 3.00 
DIRECTV W/Minimum Programming -5.00
Additional TV 6.50
Primary TV 6.50
Primary TV Free -6.50
Sales Tax 2.52
New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax 4.51
Taxes, Fees & Surcharges Total $7.03
Total Television Charges $117.51


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

PrinceLH said:


> I wish Directv would unhook the regional sports channels from their packages. That way we can send a message to the greedy RSN's and pay them nothing. This RSN fee is ridiculous. We already pay to have their channel, so why do we pay twice? If I want to see my favorite team or sport, by buying the packages like Sunday Ticket, Center Ice or NBA Season pass, I will do so.


While you may be willing to pay, most folks like to take the easy way out and call to get the package free of charge. There is a thread here about folks getting NFL ST for free.

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

ragweed10 said:


> What Lots of customers WANT.
> Put ALL Sports in their SEPARATE Package/Groups.
> The RSN FEE is really ROBBERY !! You are correct, we pay TWICE. ??? WHY ??
> 
> ...


I'm able to see it on Free to Air, as I do MeTV. I only wish that AntennaTV was also in the clear, on Free to Air. Too bad that Directv couldn't find a way to put these channels in their locals package. It sucks that we have no access to these channels, in certain markets, and they couldn't give those DMA's a National feed.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

peds48 said:


> While you may be willing to pay, most folks like to take the easy way out and call to get the package free of charge. There is a thread here about folks getting NFL ST for free.
> 
> Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


The difference there, is that the NFL is on local television stations, not RSN's. RSN's are getting out of control. I have a big issue, because we have a lot of different RSN's out of New York City, as well as Buffalo. We get multiple hits with MSG and it's affiliates, plus YES.


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

I noticed that a package called preferred extra is listed with a price increase. I don't see that plan on the DTV website, does anyone know what channels are listed and the price?


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

The extra receiver fee. What is it really a fee to mirror programming? Do they have to pay programmers a fee for the extra outlets. Yearly increases on old equipment that gets less functional gets harder to swallow. Yes you can jump through hoops hope to get better equipment or go under the 2 year commitment. It's been along time but the extra receiver fee under the NRTC was 1.99 (back in 1998). And the my RSN is now 4.93 for a channel I have never tuned too. So my premier receivers RSN is $10.30.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Raise our prices? They better add the rest of the missing HD channels!


----------



## scott0702 (Nov 25, 2006)

linuspbmo said:


> I noticed that a package called preferred extra is listed with a price increase. I don't see that plan on the DTV website, does anyone know what channels are listed and the price?


I have it. It's pretty much everything in Ultimate but excludes the majority of the sports channels, Encore movie channels and The Movie Channel. It doesn't have the RSN fee and is currently at 75.99. It looks like it will go up $4.00 in 2016. It's actually the perfect package if you don't care about the sports channels.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

What do you mean your premiere reciever is 10.39? RSN fee is per account and the box fee is per box.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Gladly trade places with yah ...
> 
> Now $4.93 here in the LA market, and the only team I care anything about, the Lakers, are a joke nowadays and unbearable to watch.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Actually they are a lot more fun to watch this year than last! Got some young talent that's growing by every game!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

And am I the only one who finds the title of this thread way overboard and misdirected? It's all about Hollywood and none about att purchase. Dang entertainers. 

Oh and let's not forget some of this is due to turner too with baseball and a huge increase for the nba.


----------



## scott0702 (Nov 25, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> And am I the only one who finds the title of this thread way overboard and misdirected? It's all about Hollywood and none about att purchase. Dang entertainers.
> 
> Oh and let's not forget some of this is due to turner too with baseball and a huge increase for the nba.


It's not really anything out of the ordinary. I have had service just about 10 years and it happens about this time each year.


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

scott0702 said:


> I have it. It's pretty much everything in Ultimate but excludes the majority of the sports channels, Encore movie channels and The Movie Channel. It doesn't have the RSN fee and is currently at 75.99. It looks like it will go up $4.00 in 2016. It's actually the perfect package if you don't care about the sports channels.


$75.99 vs $77.99, that's it? Hmm...here I was thinking it would lower it a little more than that.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Raise our prices? They better add the rest of the missing HD channels!


YEA !! 
Add the missing Channels: DIY, LIFETIME MOVIE CHANNEL, FXX, FYI, H2, Travel Channel, Nat. Geog. WILD, Science Channel,
Destination America, Great Am. Country, TV ONE, VH-1, FOX BUS NEWS, The WEATHER Channel
and ANY I Missed.


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

ragweed10 said:


> YEA !!
> Add the missing Channels: DIY, LIFETIME MOVIE CHANNEL, FXX, FYI, H2, Travel Channel, Nat. Geog. WILD, Science Channel,
> Destination America, Great Am. Country, TV ONE, VH-1, FOX BUS NEWS, The WEATHER Channel
> and ANY I Missed.


Most of the channels listed are already in HD...


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

Fish_Stick said:


> Most of the channels listed are already in HD...


These NEED to be ADDED in the SELECT Package.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

ragweed10 said:


> These NEED to be ADDED in the SELECT Package.


It kind of defeats the purpose of having an extremely basic cheap package like Select if you end up putting every non-sports channel from Entertainment, Choice and Xtra into it and increase the price of the package.

The Weather Channel got demoted after their fiasco during the dispute early in 2014, when it returned it was only in Choice and higher, while its replacement WeatherNation is in Select and Entertainment

Others like DIY, TV One, GAC, LMN, Fox Business, FYI, H2, Nat Geo Wild, FXX, Science and Destination America are usually in higher packages on nearly every other provider.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

If all included packages have 4 TV receivers, does that mean first 4 receivers are included at no charge and then $6.50/$7.00 receiver charge kicks in on 5th receiver?

Not very clear.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)




----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

scott0702 said:


> It's not really anything out of the ordinary. I have had service just about 10 years and it happens about this time each year.


Completely agree.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> It kind of defeats the purpose of having an extremely basic cheap package like Select if you end up putting every non-sports channel from Entertainment, Choice and Xtra into it and increase the price of the package.
> 
> The Weather Channel got demoted after their fiasco during the dispute early in 2014, when it returned it was only in Choice and higher, while its replacement WeatherNation is in Select and Entertainment
> 
> Others like DIY, TV One, GAC, LMN, Fox Business, FYI, H2, Nat Geo Wild, FXX, Science and Destination America are usually in higher packages on nearly every other provider.


These channels cost only pennies. They will fill in the Blanks for people that want a NON sports package.
Otherwise they have to pay $30.00 + to get a few channels they will watch.
Sports fans don't care or watch these channels.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

ragweed10 said:


> These channels cost only pennies.


Here's the average bundled cost as of 2014 for some of the stations that are in Preferred Xtra, but not in Select:
FXX - $0.21*
OWN - $0.20
FXM - $0.18*
IFC - $0.18*
Esquire - $0.17
The Weather Channel - $0.14
Travel Channel - $0.14
Al Jazeera America - $0.13*
GSN - $0.13
Nat Geo Wild - $0.13*
DIY - $0.11
Oxygen - $0.11
SundanceTV - $0.11*
LMN - $0.10*
TV One - $0.10
American Heroes - $0.09
Boomerang - $0.09
Centric - $0.09*
Cooking Channel - $0.09
Destination America - $0.09
Nicktoons - $0.09*
Sprout - $0.09
Chiller - $0.08
Cloo - $0.08
VH1 Classic - $0.08*
H2 - $0.07*
WGN America - $0.07*
Fuse - $0.06*
Logo - $0.04*
GAC - $0.02

There's also, ASPiRE*, BBC World News*, CNBC World, Discovery Family, Discovery Life, El Rey, FYI*, NBC Universo, Pop, Science Channel and UP*, but I couldn't find a current rate for them.

The ones with an asterisk have signed new deals with DirecTV within the past year and are likely more than what is listed above, others without an asterisk might have contracts with built in increases over time and are also more. And a few of them are in the midst of a contract renewal cycle so the average might be misleading if a lot of other providers are on previous contracts where the cost for them is much lower compared to providers on a more recent contract. (i.e. DirecTV is on a relatively new contract with the Comcast/NBCU channels and Scripps networks, while the Discovery channels are on an older contract)



> Sports fans don't care or watch these channels.


Yes, because sports fans watch sports and only sports...

DirecTV has 20 million+ subscribers, not all of them have the same viewing habbits, for every channel you want in select, someone else wants something else. Select is not just a non-sports package, it's basically the budget retention package for people who can't afford Entertainment or Choice. It only has the most popular channels and all the free P/I and shopping/infomercial channels that are paying to be on the lineup.

Just look at Preferred Xtra, it's $75.99 and basically removes all the sports channels except ESPN and ESPN2 from Xtra and adds a bunch of the non-sports and non-premium channels from Ultimate. ESPN and ESPN2 together are about $7, so without them that would be $68.99. Meanwhile Select is $49.99, so there's an additional $20 difference has to come from somewhere else besides ESPN and sports...


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> Here's the average bundled cost as of 2014 for some of the stations that are in Preferred Xtra, but not in Select:
> FXX - $0.21*
> OWN - $0.20
> FXM - $0.18*
> ...


Nice List. Where did you get it ?
I didn't realize how inexpensive these channels are.
I did know they don't cost much.
How does the providers justify such a high cost ?


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

It's not that inexpensive, that's just the average, the actual price a provider pays can be higher or lower than that depending on when their contract was last renewed.

i.e. In the past 2 years DirecTV renewed their contracts with Comcast/NBCU, Scripps, Disney, Fox, Viacom, Tribune, AETN and AMC networks and are likely paying a lot more for their channels compared to providers who last renewed their contract 4 years ago.

On the other end, DirecTV's contract with CBS and Discovery are older, so they are likely paying a lot less for them compared to providers who recently renewed their contract.

There's also rebrandings, depending on the when the contract was last renewed, some are still paying the old Fox Soccer Channel rate for FXX, the old Discovery Health rate for OWN or the Style network rate for Esquire.

Sundance, BBC World News and BBC America only recently became part of AMC Networks, many are still under the old Discovery contract for the BBC networks and the Showtime contract for Sundance. Fuse used to be part of Rainbow Media and then MSG Media and is now part of a seperate company.

For Al Jazeera America in 2014 there were many providers still under the rate they were paying for Current.


Plus there's other things that drive the cost up like carrying the HD feeds, VOD rights, streaming rights and TV Everywhere access.


----------



## davefred99 (Mar 22, 2006)

Seems like most folks here just accept that price increases are a way of life and thats the end of it. I for one will not stand for it much longer..can see paying a fair price for programming but all the bogus TV and advanced reciever/DVR fees are extortion. being locked into overpriced equipent rental fees should be ilegal. I am in the process of cutting the cord and reuse to be a $100+ per month ATM for BIg Cable. With all the Streaming options available now plus free OTA network access its time to take a stand and fight back.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

ragweed10 said:


> YEA !!
> Add the missing Channels: DIY, LIFETIME MOVIE CHANNEL, FXX, FYI, H2, Travel Channel, Nat. Geog. WILD, Science Channel,
> Destination America, Great Am. Country, TV ONE, VH-1, FOX BUS NEWS, The WEATHER Channel
> and ANY I Missed.


H2 is dead channel walking.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

ragweed10 said:


> These NEED to be ADDED in the SELECT Package.


Why. Is DirecTV's business, not yours....

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

davefred99 said:


> Seems like most folks here just accept that price increases are a way of life and thats the end of it. I for one will not stand for it much longer..can see paying a fair price for programming but all the bogus TV and advanced reciever/DVR fees are extortion. being locked into overpriced equipent rental fees should be ilegal. I am in the process of cutting the cord and reuse to be a $100+ per month ATM for BIg Cable. With all the Streaming options available now plus free OTA network access its time to take a stand and fight back.


Think that's bad, I can't get rid of a fee for equipment I don't use with my ISP.

But extortion is a bit extreme.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> It's not that inexpensive, that's just the average, the actual price a provider pays can be higher or lower than that depending on when their contract was last renewed.
> 
> i.e. In the past 2 years DirecTV renewed their contracts with Comcast/NBCU, Scripps, Disney, Fox, Viacom, Tribune, AETN and AMC networks and are likely paying a lot more for their channels compared to providers who last renewed their contract 4 years ago.
> 
> ...


also a few system are still on the old Setanta Sports priceing plans for Fox Soccer Plus


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

davefred99 said:


> Seems like most folks here just accept that price increases are a way of life and thats the end of it. I for one will not stand for it much longer..can see paying a fair price for programming but all the bogus TV and advanced reciever/DVR fees are extortion. being locked into overpriced equipent rental fees should be ilegal. I am in the process of cutting the cord and reuse to be a $100+ per month ATM for BIg Cable. With all the Streaming options available now plus free OTA network access its time to take a stand and fight back.


Just wait for cable co's to hit you with a gateway fee. Comcast does on there $300 fiber plan that comes with a forced $20 hardware rent.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

As an AT&T employee, I am about to get Directv for free because of the merger.
I still pay $80 a month for my home phone and internet.
Go figure.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

PrinceLH said:


> I wish Directv would unhook the regional sports channels from their packages. That way we can send a message to the greedy RSN's and pay them nothing. This RSN fee is ridiculous. We already pay to have their channel, so why do we pay twice? If I want to see my favorite team or sport, by buying the packages like Sunday Ticket, Center Ice or NBA Season pass, I will do so.


Absolutely. Personally, my biggest complaint is with those "greedy" RSNs like Root Sports Northwest, Southwest, Pittsburgh, and Rocky Mountain. Anyone know which opportunistic, greedy, scumbag corporation owns those things? Let's string 'em up.

Folks, as do all content providers, those "greedy" RSNs, including those actually owned by the MVPDs, feed at the very same trough as the rest of every other content provider, and ECO 101 tells us that if there were no demand, then the supply would fairly quickly die a well-deserved death, but, unfortunately, fortunately, or otherwise, depending upon your particular viewpoint, the demand exists, so the price keeps getting paid, and the costs to the consumer will continue to rise so long as the consumer (the demand part of the curve) is willing to absorb them. My thoughts are that we are a long, long way from equilibrium (that one may be from ECO 102).

As an example, how many of you are honestly and actually going to switch to a significantly lower-cost service or cut the cord altogether as a result of the latest price increase? I rest my case.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

armophob said:


> As an AT&T employee, I am about to get Directv for free because of the merger.
> I still pay $80 a month for my home phone and internet.
> Go figure.


Congratulations!

Do you also get a good deal on mobile wireless? (Are you with AT&T for that?)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

ragweed10 said:


> What Lots of customers WANT.
> Put ALL Sports in their SEPARATE Package/Groups.
> The RSN FEE is really ROBBERY !! You are correct, we pay TWICE. ??? WHY ??
> 
> ...


Just like Me-TV, Cozi is licensed to local channels who have exclusive rights to the network in their DMA. Unless a local channel has Cozi TV as its primary channel, it will not be on DirecTV. ION owns its affiliates, so there is a national ION feed as well as the local channel, where applicable, but the same is not true for Me-TV or Cozi-TV.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

PrinceLH said:


> I wish Directv would unhook the regional sports channels from their packages. That way we can send a message to the greedy RSN's and pay them nothing. This RSN fee is ridiculous. We already pay to have their channel, so why do we pay twice? If I want to see my favorite team or sport, by buying the packages like Sunday Ticket, Center Ice or NBA Season pass, I will do so.


I represent the other extreme. The only reason I have DirecTV is for the sports. My only complaint is that Universal HD picked up much of the programming from the defunct Universal Sports channel, but Universal HD is only available in the HD package. It should be moved to the Sports Package. I already pay $14 per month for the Sports Pack, I do not want to pay another $5 per month for Crime & Investigation HD, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries, HDNet Movies, MGM HD, Palladia HD, Sony Movie Channel HD, Smithsonian HD, Universal HD, and Shorts HD, when I do not watch movies. Universal HD, and perhaps Smithsonian HD, are the only channels in that group that I would watch, and now that Universal HD shows so much sports, it belongs in the Sports Pack.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

ragweed10 said:


> YEA !!
> Add the missing Channels: DIY, LIFETIME MOVIE CHANNEL, FXX, FYI, H2, Travel Channel, Nat. Geog. WILD, Science Channel,
> Destination America, Great Am. Country, TV ONE, VH-1, FOX BUS NEWS, The WEATHER Channel
> and ANY I Missed.


Have you checked lately? Most of those aren't missing at all.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Have you checked lately? Most of those aren't missing at all.


He wants them added to the Select package.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> He wants them added to the Select package.


But he referred to them as "missing channels". I was just letting him know they weren't missing at all.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> But he referred to them as "missing channels". I was just letting him know they weren't missing at all.


From a certain point of view


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

ragweed10 said:


> These NEED to be ADDED in the SELECT Package.


Channels are strategically placed in a package for a reason. If you want channels that are not in your package then you must upgrade to the package that has them.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

TXD16 said:


> Absolutely. Personally, my biggest complaint is with those "greedy" RSNs like Root Sports Northwest, Southwest, Pittsburgh, and Rocky Mountain. Anyone know which opportunistic, greedy, scumbag corporation owns those things? Let's string 'em up.
> 
> Folks, as do all content providers, those "greedy" RSNs, including those actually owned by the MVPDs, feed at the very same trough as the rest of every other content provider, and ECO 101 tells us that if there were no demand, then the supply would fairly quickly die a well-deserved death, but, unfortunately, fortunately, or otherwise, depending upon your particular viewpoint, the demand exists, so the price keeps getting paid, and the costs to the consumer will continue to rise so long as the consumer (the demand part of the curve) is willing to absorb them. My thoughts are that we are a long, long way from equilibrium (that one may be from ECO 102).
> 
> As an example, how many of you are honestly and actually going to switch to a significantly lower-cost service or cut the cord altogether as a result of the latest price increase? I rest my case.


IMHO, I think we are very near "peak sports". Cord cutting is still pretty small but between that and younger people who don't sign up at all, MVPDs as a whole have hit their peak for subscriptions, and non-traditional subscriptions (i.e. SlingTV) are unlikely to make up the slack. The writing is on the wall for RSNs (and ESPN) to ask for ever more money because the MVPDs will begin to push back when they reach a point where they decide they are spending too much on giveaways to keep subscribers from cutting the cord due to higher prices.

We already see the first signs of it with stuff like Dodgers and Pac 12 channels not receiving the wide coverage most observers initially assumed they could get. It will be interesting to see how things go when the Big Ten renegotiates its deals for ABC/ESPN and BTN in a year. That might be the last big increase anyone gets or the first time sports inflation sees real push back.

Disney has already made noises that ESPN isn't meeting their profitability projections of late - perhaps due to assumption of growth in MVPD subscriptions that has failed to materialize.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

fleckrj said:


> My only complaint is that Universal HD picked up much of the programming from the defunct Universal Sports channel, but Universal HD is only available in the HD package.


I think you a reading way too much into the statement that Universal HD is picking up Universal Sports content. Outside of major events involving US atheltes that conflict with other sports on NBCSN, the bulk of the former Universal Sports content will be online only via NBC Sports Live Extra, while the other non-Olympic sports won't be aired at all unless another network like BeIN picks it up. Universal HD will still mostly be reruns of programming from the NBCU library like movies, Burn Notice, White Collar, House and WWE Reruns.

I have the schedule until the end of January, outside of one USSA Ski event that they didn't even bother mentioning in their monthly highlights, it's still the same schedule as it has been for the past few years.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

PrinceLH said:


> I wish Directv would unhook the regional sports channels from their packages. That way we can send a message to the greedy RSN's and pay them nothing. This RSN fee is ridiculous. We already pay to have their channel, so why do we pay twice? If I want to see my favorite team or sport, by buying the packages like Sunday Ticket, Center Ice or NBA Season pass, I will do so.


The trick is how to give the sports networks (ESPN and RSNs) enough money to operate without breaking the subscriber's bank accounts. Separating sports at all levels (ie: allowing people to subscribe to Choice, Extra or Ultimate without RSNs or possibly other sports channels) cuts the number of subscribes paying for the RSNs. Which raises the price for those who want the RSNs to the point where they don't want the channels enough to pay the higher price. Keep circling until the RSN is gone.

To keep the RSN operating they have little choice but to demand carriage in as many packages as possible. Or not offer carriage to that provider at all. So if AT&T DIRECTV wants to deliver the channel to anyone they must deliver the channel to everyone over a certain subscription level.

The same math works for non-sports channels as well. ABC and FOX demanding certain placement for their non-sports channels. Perhaps some day such demands will not work ... but that day isn't now.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

KyL416 said:


> I think you a reading way too much into the statement that Universal HD is picking up Universal Sports content. Outside of major events involving US atheltes that conflict with other sports on NBCSN, the bulk of the former Universal Sports content will be online only via NBC Sports Live Extra, while the other non-Olympic sports won't be aired at all unless another network like BeIN picks it up. Universal HD will still mostly be reruns of programming from the NBCU library like movies, Burn Notice, White Collar, House and WWE Reruns.
> 
> I have the schedule until the end of January, outside of one USSA Ski event that they didn't even bother mentioning in their monthly highlights, it's still the same schedule as it has been for the past few years.


I have not seen the schedule that far out, but it has been said that the Santos Tour Down Under (January 16 - 24, 2016) will be on Universal HD as will most of the other cycling events that used to be on Universal Sports.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

That report was most likely was wrong, they're already promoting all day marathons of White Collar and House on some of those days.

Whatever they pick up won't be enough to justify people needing the sports pack instead of HD Extra for a HD only channel that will still mostly be reruns of TV shows and movies from the NBCU library.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I'll bet as part of the merger justification they were going to reduce cost to consumers due to savings - I'll bet we never see those as we never do after mergers. But they still get approved on that basis - save consumers money


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> What do you mean your premiere reciever is 10.39? RSN fee is per account and the box fee is per box.


Premier $8 3 receivers $1 my RSN is going up $1.39 total $10.39


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CTJon said:


> I'll bet as part of the merger justification they were going to reduce cost to consumers due to savings - I'll bet we never see those as we never do after mergers. But they still get approved on that basis - save consumers money


AT&T said they were paying about $14 more per subscriber to the networks for content on Uverse versus the same stuff on Directv, just because of the better negotiating leverage. While 20 to 26 million isn't as big of a jump as 6 to 20 million, it may still be worth something though it will take years for the full effect to be realized as it only happens when contracts are renegotiated. They will save money combining billing, service, etc. operations.

What they charge customers has more to do with what prices the competition charges versus how consumers think the products stack up against one another than it does what it costs them to deliver it. They are in business to make the most profit, not to sell the cheapest package to consumers. If they think holding the line on price increases will cause them to make more money (by adding subscribers or not having as many leave) they will do that. If they think a $10/subscriber price increase will cause them to make more money (despite the loss of subscribers that would incur) they will do that.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> IMHO, I think we are very near "peak sports". Cord cutting is still pretty small but between that and younger people who don't sign up at all, MVPDs as a whole have hit their peak for subscriptions, and non-traditional subscriptions (i.e. SlingTV) are unlikely to make up the slack. The writing is on the wall for RSNs (and ESPN) to ask for ever more money because the MVPDs will begin to push back when they reach a point where they decide they are spending too much on giveaways to keep subscribers from cutting the cord due to higher prices.
> 
> We already see the first signs of it with stuff like Dodgers and Pac 12 channels not receiving the wide coverage most observers initially assumed they could get. It will be interesting to see how things go when the Big Ten renegotiates its deals for ABC/ESPN and BTN in a year. That might be the last big increase anyone gets or the first time sports inflation sees real push back.
> 
> Disney has already made noises that ESPN isn't meeting their profitability projections of late - perhaps due to assumption of growth in MVPD subscriptions that has failed to materialize.


Big ten may have to take being pushed to sports pack out of market.


----------



## john18 (Nov 21, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> They are in business to make the most profit, not to sell the cheapest package to consumers. If they think holding the line on price increases will cause them to make more money (by adding subscribers or not having as many leave) they will do that. If they think a $10/subscriber price increase will cause them to make more money (despite the loss of subscribers that would incur) they will do that.


I had directly contacted D* each of the last two years and warned them that future rate hikes were unacceptable. Last year I cut from Premier to Ultimate and this year I will cut again and look to get out entirely once my contract expires n the Spring.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

john18 said:


> I had directly contacted D* each of the last two years and warned them that future rate hikes were unacceptable. Last year I cut from Premier to Ultimate and this year I will cut again and look to get out entirely once my contract expires n the Spring.


Why not drop to the "SELECT Package" SAVE another $30.00 +


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

john18 said:


> I had directly contacted D* each of the last two years and warned them that future rate hikes were unacceptable. Last year I cut from Premier to Ultimate and this year I will cut again and look to get out entirely once my contract expires n the Spring.


They won't listen when you "warn" them, but if enough people switch to lower packages or leave Directv without enough new customers to make up for it, it will impact their profitability and cause them to change. Of course that change might take the place of slowing price increases to keep people, or _speeding up_ price increases - accepting lower subscriber numbers but trying to make more money per subscriber. It all depends on how they think they will make the most money.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ragweed10 said:


> Why not drop to the "SELECT Package" SAVE another $30.00 +


If saving money was the only goal that (or cancelling service) would be a good idea. The challenge is to get enough content to make the price worthwhile. Yes, Select is less expensive. But it has a lot less channels in it than his current package. And if DIRECTV added channels to Select they would need to raise the price.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

James Long said:


> If saving money was the only goal that (or cancelling service) would be a good idea. The challenge is to get enough content to make the price worthwhile. Yes, Select is less expensive. But it has a lot less channels in it than his current package. And if DIRECTV added channels to Select they would need to raise the price.


It is missing ONLY about 10 regular Channels.
If you are NOT into sports, this is a good package. with LOTS of normal channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ragweed10 said:


> It is missing ONLY about 10 regular Channels.


Perhaps 10 channels that you care about ... but a lot more than 10 channels are "missing" that others may care about. And they are not sports channels.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

James Long said:


> Perhaps 10 channels that you care about ... but a lot more than 10 channels are "missing" that others may care about. And they are not sports channels.


Which ones ? I only saw about 10


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

The problem I have with dropping to lower packages is that there is usually 1or 2 shows I want and only n package id love to drop. Sure that is on purpose. If they ever actually did a la cart I'm sure it would cost a lot more


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

ragweed10 said:


> Which ones ? I only saw about 10


AJAM (though not sure of the status of this), AHC, Aspire, BBC World News, Boomerang, Centric, Chiller, Cloo, CNBC World, Cooking, GSM, IFC, Logo plus the channels you mentioned earlier and others.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

dpeters11 said:


> AJAM (though not sure of the status of this), AHC, Aspire, BBC World News, Boomerang, Centric, Chiller, Cloo, CNBC World, Cooking, GSM, IFC, Logo plus the channels you mentioned earlier and others.


I didn't mention these because they are Not in HD.
But these should also be in the Lower Packages,
with the NEW Satellite they will probably be in HD Soon.
And with the addition of these channels, it would be a Good addition for people NOT into sports.
This is a small number of channels and a small cost to DTV.
Most sports viewers don't care about these channels anyway.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

APB101 said:


> Congratulations!
> 
> Do you also get a good deal on mobile wireless? (Are you with AT&T for that?)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They have always provided outside employees with beepers and then cell phones.

I have never had a cell phone of my own.

We are not supposed to use it for private calls.
But it is impossible to enforce.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

ragweed10 said:


> I didn't mention these because they are Not in HD.
> But these should also be in the Lower Packages,
> with the NEW Satellite they will probably be in HD Soon.
> And with the addition of these channels, it would be a Good addition for people NOT into sports.
> ...


Some may come in HD, some may not be offered in HD from the source.

There are some that watch things on channels that aren't in HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ragweed10 said:


> I didn't mention these because they are Not in HD.
> But these should also be in the Lower Packages,
> with the NEW Satellite they will probably be in HD Soon.
> And with the addition of these channels, it would be a Good addition for people NOT into sports.
> ...


As stated, the problem with adding channels to Select or any of the other low price packages is that DIRECTV will need to raise the rate on those lower packages. You would be forcing more of DIRECTV's subscribers to pay a higher rate. That is not good.

If you want more channels buy a higher package.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

After speaking with a DirecTV rep about the All-Included packages, they said that it would include up to 4 tvs in addition to all the Fees like Advanced Receiver-HD and DVR. The rep said that this would save money for most people.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

btedford said:


> After speaking with a DirecTV rep about the All-Included packages, they said that it would include up to 4 tvs in addition to all the Fees like Advanced Receiver-HD and DVR. The rep said that this would save money for most people.


Yeah but further back in the thread there was a post claiming it also bundled internet. AT&T does not have a wire-line internet presence in my area, so that would be impossible. At one point you could bundle with Verizon DSL, but now that AT&T owns DirecTV I don't know if they would allow bundling with a competitor. I'd never do that anyway, my cable 50/5 mbps line blows away crummy 6mbps/384kbps DSL.

I'm interested in learning about "Preferred Xtra".


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

cypherx said:


> , but now that AT&T owns DirecTV I don't know if they would allow bundling with a competitor.


Yes they do, they still do bundles with Verizon as there is no competition in those areas. One offers strictly TV, the other one offers phone and Internet. They need each other to compete with Cable's triple play

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

CTJon said:


> I'll bet as part of the merger justification they were going to reduce cost to consumers due to savings - I'll bet we never see those as we never do after mergers. But they still get approved on that basis - save consumers money


The merger justification had nothing to do with reducing cost to consumers. Mergers are only justified based on increasing value to the shareholder (i.e., increasing profit). The responsibility of the officers and boards of directors of corporations is only to the shareholder. They owe nothing to the consumer.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

PrinceLH said:


> I wish Directv would unhook the regional sports channels from their packages. That way we can send a message to the greedy RSN's and pay them nothing. This RSN fee is ridiculous. We already pay to have their channel, so why do we pay twice? If I want to see my favorite team or sport, by buying the packages like Sunday Ticket, Center Ice or NBA Season pass, I will do so.


Not if its a local team you wont. That is not what the out of market packages are for. That is what the RSN's are for.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Well the U-Verse side is also getting hit with price increases 
https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Socks-UVerse-Users-With-a-New-Round-of-Price-Increases-135854

Timing is the same, 1/28/16.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

cypherx said:


> Well the U-Verse side is also getting hit with price increases
> https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Socks-UVerse-Users-With-a-New-Round-of-Price-Increases-135854
> 
> Timing is the same, 1/28/16.


I noticed that, too.

What will be interesting, at least to me, is to see not only with 4K but what gets added in HD in 2016. And it will be interesting to see if more U-verse/DirecTV agreements get synced so that, come 2018-2020, whenever exactly, we would get a merged channel lineup.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

davefred99 said:


> Seems like most folks here just accept that price increases are a way of life and thats the end of it. I for one will not stand for it much longer..can see paying a fair price for programming but all the bogus TV and advanced reciever/DVR fees are extortion. being locked into overpriced equipent rental fees should be ilegal. I am in the process of cutting the cord and reuse to be a $100+ per month ATM for BIg Cable. With all the Streaming options available now plus free OTA network access its time to take a stand and fight back.


While I want my bill to be as low as possible I think you are missing a few things here. The receivers you use do not come at no cost to DirecTV. They have to pay to have them manufactured and also pay someone to write the firmware updates that come out as well. All of that and the employees at DirecTV have to be paid to keep all us customers happy. Its not just about the price of the channels. What about the installers, the people you call when having issues or billing questions or want to upgrade or order a PPV. Everything costs money.

If you want to start your own company where you spend all your own money on the hardware and maintaining it for free and only pass on the expense of the programming, I imagine that there are alot of people who would pay you instead. I think you would quickly decide that it wasnt worth it and want to make more money just to cover what you needed to run the business much less make a profit.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

PrinceLH said:


> I wish Directv would unhook the regional sports channels from their packages. That way we can send a message to the greedy RSN's and pay them nothing. This RSN fee is ridiculous. We already pay to have their channel, so why do we pay twice? If I want to see my favorite team or sport, by buying the packages like Sunday Ticket, Center Ice or NBA Season pass, I will do so.


If they can do that then I want the following:
I live in Pittsburgh and love baseball but have no interest in hockey. There for, I want to only pay for the time that Root Sports Pittsburgh broadcasts the Pirates but not when they broadcast the Penguins. I will happily accept a blackout when the Penguins are broadcast. I suspect they aren't going to let either one of us run their business.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

fleckrj said:


> I represent the other extreme. The only reason I have DirecTV is for the sports. My only complaint is that Universal HD picked up much of the programming from the defunct Universal Sports channel, but Universal HD is only available in the HD package. It should be moved to the Sports Package. I already pay $14 per month for the Sports Pack, I do not want to pay another $5 per month for Crime & Investigation HD, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries, HDNet Movies, MGM HD, Palladia HD, Sony Movie Channel HD, Smithsonian HD, Universal HD, and Shorts HD, when I do not watch movies. Universal HD, and perhaps Smithsonian HD, are the only channels in that group that I would watch, and now that Universal HD shows so much sports, it belongs in the Sports Pack.


At least that package is offered free for 3 months and then when you cancel it and is always available for for free for another 3 months. Not really a valid argument here if you ask me.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

CTJon said:


> I'll bet as part of the merger justification they were going to reduce cost to consumers due to savings - I'll bet we never see those as we never do after mergers. But they still get approved on that basis - save consumers money


There are always things we dont see thought that could help in ways we dont know of. Like maybe because AT&T has deals in place with stations DirecTV is reneweing, they get a better rate than we would have and we dont see an increase on certain channels. We dont know if and or what the benefits we gained out of the merger were. We may never know and maybe there are none but it is possible there are some and we are just not privy to that information.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

john18 said:


> I had directly contacted D* each of the last two years and warned them that future rate hikes were unacceptable. Last year I cut from Premier to Ultimate and this year I will cut again and look to get out entirely once my contract expires n the Spring.


Good luck with finding a suitable replacement. It will happen no matter what provider you have over time that is.


----------



## Fish_Stick (Apr 8, 2015)

I think if anyone is going to be a winner in the merger it will be the AT&T customer side using U-Verse. DirecTV had the bargaining power to bring the prices down for that side and improve the quality. I've never blamed DTV for the price increases but rather the content providers wanting more for less quality programming. DTV gets a product and has to pay x dollars to make it work and keep it maintained so they are just a retailer. With my viewing habits what paid TV has to offer doesn't impress me much anymore, a couple of shows here and there but most are just meh.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

davefred99 said:


> Seems like most folks here just accept that price increases are a way of life and thats the end of it. I for one will not stand for it much longer..can see paying a fair price for programming but all the bogus TV and advanced reciever/DVR fees are extortion. being locked into overpriced equipent rental fees should be ilegal. I am in the process of cutting the cord and reuse to be a $100+ per month ATM for BIg Cable. With all the Streaming options available now plus free OTA network access its time to take a stand and fight back.


DIRECTV (and dish for that matter) know. They keep telling the cable channels that customers won't stand for increases of more than 5% each year, yet the channels themselves keep wanting 8 to 15% more each year. At some point, DIRECTV would be losing money on each subscriber--a losing proposition for everyone.

DIRECTV has stretched their ability to reduce internal costs about as much as possible, so they can no longer afford to pay larger increases to providers than they can charge customers. Something is going to give.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> DIRECTV (and dish for that matter) know. They keep telling the cable channels that customers won't stand for increases of more than 5% each year, yet the channels themselves keep wanting 8 to 15% more each year. At some point, DIRECTV would be losing money on each subscriber--a losing proposition for everyone.


Unfortunately DIRECTV is the only one in a position to say NO. Channels have to make the hard choice to accept what will be paid or not be carried. Only by negotiating for ~20 million subscribers (~26 million if uverse is part of the negotiation) can anyone get channels to keep their prices down.



Tom Robertson said:


> DIRECTV has stretched their ability to reduce internal costs about as much as possible, so they can no longer afford to pay larger increases to providers than they can charge customers. Something is going to give.


It is ok to make money. DIRECTV making an average profit of $20 per subscriber per month is not a problem. Companies are supposed to make money. But I would not say that a company with that level of profit "can no longer afford to pay". They have just set the priority to be more profitable. Not a bad priority, but still a choice.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> Unfortunately DIRECTV is the only one in a position to say NO. Channels have to make the hard choice to accept what will be paid or not be carried. Only by negotiating for ~20 million subscribers (~26 million if uverse is part of the negotiation) can anyone get channels to keep their prices down.
> 
> It is ok to make money. DIRECTV making an average profit of $20 per subscriber per month is not a problem. Companies are supposed to make money. But I would not say that a company with that level of profit "can no longer afford to pay". They have just set the priority to be more profitable. Not a bad priority, but still a choice.


Feels like you've reacted to the feigned hook and smacked into the uppercut. 

Yes, Wall Street investors have told DIRECTV, now AT&T, to make a profit and at what margin level those profits must be. Or they won't risk their money on too little of a return. Every industry has investor expectations, as you know. They aren't so much AT&T decisions as the investors expectations for an industry and associated risk level.

So my point is that they have roughly cut their costs as far as they feel they can do before upsetting the investors. If they cut costs too much, customers will not pay for the lowered service levels, thus reducing the profit margin by reducing the top line. At some point the current pricing changes will no longer be sustainable. If the costs go up 15% and the revenues only go up 5% each year, something will break. 

I also am not certain I agree that DIRECTV is the only one who can say no. Customers are saying no by dropping to lower packages or dropping DIRECTV altogether. Cable channels are saying no if they don't get the pricing they want. DIRECTV is saying no when cable channels are asking for too much.

The question in my mind is will this be another Music Industry type collapse or will it be a more graceful evolution to new pricing models? That mostly rests in the hands of the cable channels. Do they see the handwriting on the wall or do they ignore it until the revolution comes--and they are out.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

WoW now that going be a very very big mistake on there part and they wonder why they are gone to get and even bigger subscribers loss this coming year and here I was thinking switch back to DirecTV as my as well just keep what I all ready have Dish that is.
https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Now-Merged-ATT-and-DirecTV-Raise-TV-Rates-in-Perfect-Unison-135907


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I guess you haven't noticed that Dish is going to raise their rates also.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

SHS said:


> WoW now that going be a very very big mistake on there part and they wonder why they are gone to get and even bigger subscribers loss this coming year and here I was thinking switch back to DirecTV as my as well just keep what I all ready have Dish that is.
> https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Now-Merged-ATT-and-DirecTV-Raise-TV-Rates-in-Perfect-Unison-135907


Yearly rate increases are the norm with service providers.


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> I guess you haven't noticed that Dish is going to raise their rates also.
> 
> Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


There no reason for 2x the price hike by add $10 if not more to your bill at most dish subscriber may see a $5 tops if it gose up an more then they can kiss my you know what I just switch cable.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SHS said:


> There no reason for 2x the price hike by add $10 if not more to your bill at most dish subscriber may see a $5 tops if it gose up an more then they can kiss my you know what I just switch cable.


I guess you haven't noticed that Cable is going to raise their rates also.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SHS said:


> There no reason for 2x the price hike by add $10 if not more to your bill at most dish subscriber may see a $5 tops if it gose up an more then they can kiss my you know what I just switch cable.


AEP at DISH is going up $8 ... add in their DVR fee increase and one can top $10.

Both companies are raising some rates and some fees. The less one subscribes to and the less equipment one has the less the increase will be.


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

peds48 said:


> I guess you haven't noticed that Cable is going to raise their rates also.


The current US inflation rate is slightly above zero vs 2014 inflation rate which was 1.6 percent so your wrong there need for price this year
Oh CableONE did raise their rates on TV service in fact none of the other have raise their rates other the Comcarp and AT$T as far I know of.
Now Internet boardband now that diff story.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

James Long said:


> AEP at DISH is going up $8 ... add in their DVR fee increase and one can top $10.
> 
> Both companies are raising some rates and some fees. The less one subscribes to and the less equipment one has the less the increase will be.


Note that equipment fees are not going up on Dish for existing customers. And AEP is not sold any more. Personally I see a rate increase of some amount coming and for those of us that sub to Premiums, there are ways to negotiate when you call for discounts. I think both D* and E* are going to be doing more dickering for those willing to put forth the effort to call/chat and let those that won't or don't realize they can dicker, just pay the increases.

For Direct, they are raising the equipment fee a little less than 10%, upping the subscription fees, have higher Premium subscription pricing and raising and/or implementing the RSN fee. But again, I think that those that call and want to dicker a bit, they will find it not so difficult.

Both services (and cable), are struggling to keep subscription levels up and reduce churn. I firmly believe they know that they are all in a crappy position with their customers because of these rising costs and know they are getting very close to the point when a majority may just say 'screw this' and move along to something else. Unfortunately, the something else isn't quite there yet.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

SHS said:


> in fact none of the other have raise their rates other the Comcarp and AT$T as far I know of.


Cablevision:
https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30440347-January-2016-Price-Increases

Time Warner Cable:
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/12/11/time-warner-announces-it-will-raise-prices-next-year/

It's still early, usually the announcements start trickling out over the next month or two as people get their December or January billing statements.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

peds48 said:


> I guess you haven't noticed that Cable is going to raise their rates also.


I think this may be where the switch for new customer pricing comes in. A year or two with each provider, moving to a new one each time until you re-sign with the first one and do the cycle over again.


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

KyL416 said:


> Cablevision:
> https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30440347-January-2016-Price-Increases
> 
> Time Warner Cable:
> ...


We see what happing



lparsons21 said:


> Note that equipment fees are not going up on Dish for existing customers. And AEP is not sold any more. Personally I see a rate increase of some amount coming and for those of us that sub to Premiums, there are ways to negotiate when you call for discounts. I think both D* and E* are going to be doing more dickering for those willing to put forth the effort to call/chat and let those that won't or don't realize they can dicker, just pay the increases.
> 
> For Direct, they are raising the equipment fee a little less than 10%, upping the subscription fees, have higher Premium subscription pricing and raising and/or implementing the RSN fee. But again, I think that those that call and want to dicker a bit, they will find it not so difficult.
> 
> Both services (and cable), are struggling to keep subscription levels up and reduce churn. I firmly believe they know that they are all in a crappy position with their customers because of these rising costs and know they are getting very close to the point when a majority may just say 'screw this' and move along to something else. Unfortunately, the something else isn't quite there yet.


Like me when it get above pass budget funds and if oil price take major up tick in price this bad news for the low income .


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> I think this may be where the switch for new customer pricing comes in. A year or two with each provider, moving to a new one each time until you re-sign with the first one and do the cycle over again.


I know but what the point of have to switch ever few years when in the long run there better off get there price down in keep subscribers on there service in frist place


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I don't like the fees going up but do they need to it to cover the developmental cost of configuring and launching that next generation TV platform that they announced?


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> I don't like the fees going up but do they need to it to cover the developmental cost of configuring and launching that next generation TV platform that they announced?


To bad there next generation Hopper is not really new news but more of an update skin with color change from blue to dark grey or lite black I wouldn't go calling that new news and there the Joey 4k next generation like nice but not a big deal I think it to soon for 4k
There the DirceTV Genie ho god it so limited in features.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SHS said:


> The current US inflation rate is slightly above zero vs 2014 inflation rate which was 1.6 percent so your wrong there need for price this year
> Oh CableONE did raise their rates on TV service in fact none of the other have raise their rates other the Comcarp and AT$T as far I know of.
> Now Internet boardband now that diff story.


You can't pick out a specific market segment and claim their prices should be based on the overall inflation rate - which is itself measured as a blend of all sorts of prices. Some prices are going up, some are going down, some by a little, some by a lot.

All the channels that cable/satellite companies carry keep raising their prices at well above the rate of inflation, so must providers. You don't expect to pay the same price for a gallon of gas you did two years ago just because the inflation during that time has been only a couple percent. You expect to pay much less because the price of oil, which is a major component of the gas price, has gone way down. You should expect to have increases larger than the price of inflation for cable/satellite because the price of content, which is a major component of your bill, has gone way up.

People tend to focus on the things that go up less than the things that go down. Be happy when it is your cable bill that goes up and gas that goes down, because that saves you money. If gas prices went back to over $4 a gallon, that would cost most people more in a month than they would save even if TV were free!


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> slice1900, on 17 Dec 2015 - 1:52 PM, said:
> 
> You can't pick out a specific market segment and claim their prices should be based on the overall inflation rate - which is itself measured as a blend of all sorts of prices. Some prices are going up, some are going down, some by a little, some by a lot.
> 
> ...


No that mean they would dump there TV service even faster as it is usely the first thing that gose.
And by the way I said Oil not Gas and should know that Crude Oil is osed in boat load of product we all used every day not just a fuel for our cars, trucks, and planes, and heating oil so one day it will be all gone
Have read this Dish Network's Subscriber Losses Accelerate ?.


----------



## davefred99 (Mar 22, 2006)

Direct TV, Dish & all the other Cable companies may not be totally to blame for the ever increasing rise in subscripion costs but they certainly are were the buck stops for consumers. Cord Cutters and especialy Cord Nevers are voting with a big voice and its only going to get worse as they raise prices. Time will tell but I for one believe the Cable/Programer industry buble is about to pop. Look at ESPN if you need proof. We live in a world were peaple no longer want or are willing to pay for things they don't want or use. The economy may be improving on Wall Street but us folks on Main Street only have so much money to go around and a $130.00+ average Cable/Sat bill is not affordable for folks working at low paying no end jobs and us retired folks who live on fixed incomes can not keep pace with these ncreases so we will find alternatives or do without.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SHS said:


> We see what happing
> 
> Like me when it get above pass budget funds and if oil price take major up tick in price this bad news for the low income .


So now that you have conceded that no matter where you there will be a price increase, I am curious about your future plans with paid TV.

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> Note that equipment fees are not going up on Dish for existing customers.


The DVR fee is increasing ... from $12 to $15 for customers with a Hopper. Add that to the $8 AEP increase and one has more than a $10 increase.



lparsons21 said:


> And AEP is not sold any more.


AEP is still sold ... America's "Everything" Pack (and DISH even advertises it with the quote marks!).


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Count me as one of the subs getting nailed on this round of increases. Usually premier goes up in $5.00 increments not $8.00, coupled with my 13 HD-DVR's, I'm guessing my bill goes up $14.71 including tax every month/$177.00 a year? Of course the DVR fee didn't go up at all, because I get that for free.

Hopefully these increases come with a complimentary jar of something!


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

peds48 said:


> So now that you have conceded that no matter where you there will be a price increase, I am curious about your future plans with paid TV.
> 
> Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


If it real dose gose up a lot then with a in few months from now this coming April when my dish contract is up I just make a switch to must likely to cable as it would be must chearp at lease as much $50 with 2 TiVo DVR and get more tuner for less and could save even more if I where to get some Silicondust HD HomeRun to go with Emby and AndoirdTV/Roku boxs. But that not going happing becuase of copy protected channels ever where so we can't record them to watch later so there are only two option 6 Analog HD receiver with Software DVR like SageTV, NextPVR or 2nd option is to just get CableONE TiVo DVR, the only down side there a few missing channel we like but then agine Dish dosen't have the MavTV Channel BooHoo any more but with CableTV we miss El Rey and SpikeTV DBL BooHoo which is not a big deal as only thing we watch on Spike it is PowerNation also know Powerblock TV which also on NBC Sports Network Channel.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

A la Carte needs to be implemented and some of the greedy providers can take a hit on their poor performers. I would certainly love to pick and choose what I want. I'm sick of paying for twice as many channels than I watch, but due to bundling, I'm stuck paying for them. I only watch about 20 channels, the rest can go the way of the dodo.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

PrinceLH said:


> A la Carte needs to be implemented and some of the greedy providers can take a hit on their poor performers. I would certainly love to pick and choose what I want. I'm sick of paying for twice as many channels than I watch, but due to bundling, I'm stuck paying for them. I only watch about 20 channels, the rest can go the way of the dodo.


Do you really think you can pay $.14 cents per channel? DirecTV can, you probably be paying lots more than that!

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Chances are those 20 channels are being subsidized by a more popular sister station you don't watch. i.e. All of Viacoms digital channels are so cheap because most of the overhead is being paid for by their more popular sister stations like Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and VH1. The techs working in the control room, the people working in ad sales, marketing and accounting, and all the other office staff have the same job no matter which channels you select. Developing pilots still costs money, the actors, writers and crew still get paid even if you don't pick up the pilot. If they have to split it up, that cost will be applied to all of their channels, so now instead of paying only $0.17 for TV Land or $0.13 for TeenNick, you'll now be paying over $2 for each of them.

And if you watch some of the more expensive channels like TNT or TBS, you can expect an even larger increase since they can no longer rely on their sister channels to spread the cost of the NBA, MLB and NCAA rights. Which also creates another future problem, next time those rights are up for renewal, a channel that doesn't have sports might be more appealing to league and their advertisers if they're now in more homes than ESPN or FS1, and then channels like USA, Spike, A&E or even AMC might end up with the rights.

Also if any of those 20 channels are niche, you can forget about them even existing or keeping the same format if they now have to appeal to the masses to get carriage or increase their price to make up for lost ad revenue because they're now in less homes.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Right, a la carte sounds great, but would never work out in our favor. Or a lot of niche channels would completely go under, inevitably something you liked.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

fleckrj said:


> The merger justification had nothing to do with reducing cost to consumers. Mergers are only justified based on increasing value to the shareholder (i.e., increasing profit). The responsibility of the officers and boards of directors of corporations is only to the shareholder. They owe nothing to the consumer.


I didn't mean in their own minds - I meant they probably said that to regulators as justification. I'm one of those believers that think the reason for corporationg is to make profits and they obviously lie to regulators to get that done.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

CTJon said:


> I didn't mean in their own minds - I meant they probably said that to regulators as justification. I'm one of those believers that think the reason for corporationg is to make profits and they obviously lie to regulators to get that done.


The regulators do not care about customers, either. With the exception of enforcing existing antitrust laws, regulators, too, are only looking out for the shareholders.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> And if you watch some of the more expensive channels like TNT or TBS, you can expect an even larger increase since they can no longer rely on their sister channels to spread the cost of the NBA, MLB and NCAA rights. Which also creates another future problem, next time those rights are up for renewal, a channel that doesn't have sports might be more appealing to league and their advertisers if they're now in more homes than ESPN or FS1, and then channels like USA, Spike, A&E or even AMC might end up with the rights.


The new TNT NBA deal taks effect in 2016. TNT agreed to double the rights paid to the NBA. So look for a substantial increase in the TNT monthly carriage fees next year.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

CTJon said:


> I didn't mean in their own minds - I meant they probably said that to regulators as justification. I'm one of those believers that think the reason for corporationg is to make profits and they obviously lie to regulators to get that done.


That's why the consumers' only real defense lies with themselves and use their responsibilities to their share holders against them. When the cancelations and fleeing to lower packages begin to mount the MVPDs, Hollywood, and others get the message real quick. Or else their stockholders will quickly see declining profits.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There was an article written at Motley Fool earlier this year about what prices would be if you could actually buy one channel at a time:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/04/01/espn-for-36-analyst-shows-true-cost-of-a-la-carte.aspx

If you like ESPN, would you pay $36/month for it? That's just ESPN, doesn't even include ESPN2! If you or some others who watch it regularly now wouldn't, the asking price would be even higher for it for them to maintain their current profitability. Do you have kids who watch Disney and Nickelodean? Just those two channels would be over $13/month under ala carte. Channels that couldn't get enough subscribers at a price that would support their operations would simply fold - selection would go way way down because most channels are not watched by more than a few percent of viewers with any regularity.

You can argue channels would be forced to accept less money, but then there's less original content. Sports channels can simply bid less for rights and athletes have to accept lower salaries but are still rich so no one is really hurt there. But how are Disney and Nickelodean going to cut costs? Maybe Disney starts showing commercials? Both would develop a lot less new content (which maybe isn't terrible, would the world be a worse place if Spongebob was never created?) and probably go back to the 80s style cartoons where everything has a marketing tie-in and cartoons are basically 30 minute ads for toys. If that happens you probably aren't willing to pay for them at all, so they fold and there's nothing for kids to watch on TV. Oh well, more time for them to play video games I guess! What about AMC, if they have to cut costs they don't develop the next Mad Men or Walking Dead, and go back to their old format of just showing old movies. Some people would like that, but then there's less original content and so something they are working on now for the 2017 season that you might have thought was the best show you ever watched never hits the screen.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> That's why the consumers' only real defense lies with themselves and use their responsibilities to their share holders against them. When the cancelations and fleeing to lower packages begin to mount the MVPDs, Hollywood, and others get the message real quick. Or else their stockholders will quickly see declining prophets.


I prefer my prophets to be reclining not declining. Being a prophet is hard work and those guys deserve their rest at the end of a hard day of sermoning on the mount. :rotfl:

The channels that are only available in the upper tier packages would be the first to feel that pain. Declining subscribers at those tiers will probably cause them to ask for more money at first, but eventually they may seek when contracts are renegotiated to accept less money and move to a lower tier to get wider coverage. The movement into the lower packages doesn't really affect the majority of the channels that aren't gone. The thing to watch is people moving into the very bottom tier packages where a significant number of channels are lost - like switching to the Family package on Directv. It has 50 channels but if you exclude PI/shopping type channels, east/west dupes etc. most people would consider it to have only about 10 channels plus locals. Surprised to see Disney in there since they aren't cheap - guess that is Disney's price for excluding ESPN from a package!


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Lol, I fixed it ... "profits"

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

It wouldn't hurt my feeling on bit if they got rid of ESPN as I haven't watch any thing on it in well over 20 years as It just a junk channel just like MTV, MTV 2 and other.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> The new TNT NBA deal taks effect in 2016. TNT agreed to double the rights paid to the NBA. So look for a substantial increase in the TNT monthly carriage fees next year.


You are late to the game on that their prices have already gone up with their new contracts since they signed the nba deal. Why else would dish have them off the air last year for a better deal....


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

SHS said:


> It wouldn't my feeling on bit if they got rid of ESPN as I haven't watch any thing on it in well over 20 years as It just a junk channel just like MTV, MTV 2 and other.


Every time a company has tried to completely eliminate ESPN to lower their costs, the attempts have failed. There aren't enough subscribers who are willing to give up ESPN to be viable.

There has been a limited success with trying to create hidden or lesser known packages that don't have ESPN--though my understanding is contracts with ESPN limit what percentage of customers can subscribe to those packages.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

SHS said:


> It wouldn't my feeling on bit if they got rid of ESPN as I haven't watch any thing on it in well over 20 years as It just a junk channel just like MTV, MTV 2 and other.


You're in the minority.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

litzdog911 said:


> You're in the minority.


Me too! Never watch ESPN.

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Tom Robertson, on 19 Dec 2015 - 3:40 PM, said:
> 
> Every time a company has tried to completely eliminate ESPN to lower their costs, the attempts have failed. There aren't enough subscribers who are willing to give up ESPN to be viable.
> 
> ...


Tom that dose depend what after as to bad they didn't get rigth years ago that why I was so happy when SPEED Channel come out
Now I mostly watch Velocity are few other channel I wish we had MavTV back on Dish there where good show I like.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

litzdog911 said:


> You're in the minority.


You Sure ? I don't know anyone who watches ESPN. 
All I hear is complaints about ESPN Jacking up the Package Prices.
Even Disney said they lost 7M Customers.
People are Lowering their packages or Dropping, (CORD CUTTING) to get away from ESPN
Even peds48 says he never watches ESPN.
The Lower packages ( like SELECT) have quite a following


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

ragweed10 said:


> You Sure ? I don't know anyone who watches ESPN.
> All I hear is complaints about ESPN Jacking up the Package Prices.
> Even Disney said they lost 7M Customers.
> People are Lowering their packages or Dropping, (CORD CUTTING) to get away from ESPN
> ...


He's sure. As I posted above his post, every company that has tried going without ESPN has failed. There is a reason ESPN is so expensive--people watch it. A lot.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

I have a POTS/DSL/Dtv Triple Play through Verizon. My bill still never went up from last year's increase. My Xtra still comes in at $73.99. And on my bill it says something like "You have a $2 and $2 discount for bundled services." I find it interesting that Verizon did not pass along the increase to us. Wonder if they will this year. (I did, however, get the TV fee increase to $6.50 per TV).


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

Tom Robertson said:


> He's sure. As I posted above his post, every company that has tried going without ESPN has failed. There is a reason ESPN is so expensive--people watch it. A lot.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Which Companies have Failed ?


----------



## davefred99 (Mar 22, 2006)

We can all argue over who is to blame for the high price of Programming & Sports channels but in the end it all comes down to the consumer. If you are willing or can afford to pay ever increasing subscription fees then nothing will change and year in and year out we will have the same conversations. At some point entertainers, athletes and corporate investors are all going to have to take a hair cut or there wont be enough paying customers left to pay them. They will only change when it effects there bottom line. Cord Cutters have already had a major impact but they are circling the wagons with internet access and data caps. We as consumers have to stand up and be heard the best voice is with our feet. The free market can work but not if we have monopolies that have politicians in the back pockets. The old saying Money Talks is as true today as ever.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> He's sure. As I posted above his post, every company that has tried going without ESPN has failed. There is a reason ESPN is so expensive--people watch it. A lot.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Yep. It was the #1 cable network in 2014 ....
http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/ratings-espn-tops-cable-for-year-own-hallmark-we-tv-among-few-gainers-1201391036/


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

litzdog911 said:


> Yep. It was the #1 cable network in 2014 ....
> http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/ratings-espn-tops-cable-for-year-own-hallmark-we-tv-among-few-gainers-1201391036/


Among the top 10 cable networks in terms of prime-time viewers, only Fox News Channel, HGTV and Discovery Channel are on track to finish 2015 on an upswing.

ESPN averaged 2.1 million viewers, an 8% drop compared with last year when it averaged 2.3 million viewers. Its closest rival was Fox Sports 1, which averaged just 385,000 viewers in prime time. NBC Sports Network averaged 365,000.

Among the top channels taking big hits this year are TNT, off 16% in viewers, and History, which is experiencing a decline of 20%.

Maybe the History Channel will start showing programs about history again?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hgtv-fox-news-among-only-top-cable-networks-to-boost-ratings-this-year-1450466006

DirecTV always raises its rates yearly, even before AT&T took it over. In fact, every provider raises its rates annually.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

davefred99 said:


> We can all argue over who is to blame for the high price of Programming & Sports channels but in the end it all comes down to the consumer. If you are willing or can afford to pay ever increasing subscription fees then nothing will change and year in and year out we will have the same conversations. At some point entertainers, athletes and corporate investors are all going to have to take a hair cut or there wont be enough paying customers left to pay them. They will only change when it effects there bottom line. Cord Cutters have already had a major impact but they are circling the wagons with internet access and data caps. We as consumers have to stand up and be heard the best voice is with our feet. The free market can work but not if we have monopolies that have politicians in the back pockets. The old saying Money Talks is as true today as ever.


Well said. A 5-10 dollar increase per year is not sustainable. I think they are very close to what the market will bear. I would think that they will see similar drops in viewership over the next year if not more.


----------



## stoutman (Feb 8, 2003)

I downgraded yesterday for the first time in probably a decade. I just don't watch the extra movie or sports channels any more. I will just sign up when I want to watch a series. The ESPN3 games have made sports channels less attractive too. Premiere to Xtra saves me a "bundle"


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

fleckrj said:


> The regulators do not care about customers, either. With the exception of enforcing existing antitrust laws, regulators, too, are only looking out for the shareholders.


And this explains why I never give it a second thought when I try for discounts and such. I find it funny when some here get in a lather about us that do negotiate are hurting others. Well, first it doesn't and second, my responsibility is to me. D* and any other company of size, has plenty of people, the gov't, and lobbyists to take care of their best interest. I only have me!!


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

stoutman said:


> I downgraded yesterday for the first time in probably a decade. I just don't watch the extra movie or sports channels any more. I will just sign up when I want to watch a series. The ESPN3 games have made sports channels less attractive too. Premiere to Xtra saves me a "bundle"
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


You ONLY jumped out of the FRYING PAN and into the Fire.
If you really want to save a "BUNDLE:, Down Grade to the "SELECT Package" 
Has NO Sports Channels, NO """Regional Sports FEES""", Tons of Normal Channels, with Movies, BUT at NO extra Charge, and almost ALL in HD.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

ragweed10 said:


> You Sure ? I don't know anyone who watches ESPN.
> All I hear is complaints about ESPN Jacking up the Package Prices.
> Even Disney said they lost 7M Customers.
> People are Lowering their packages or Dropping, (CORD CUTTING) to get away from ESPN
> ...


A Cox cable exec (and i believe that Charlie Ergen has as well) recently said that only 20% of his subscriber base watches ESPN, and the remaining 80% have to subsidize it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> A Cox cable exec (and i believe that Charlie Ergen has as well) recently said that only 20% of his subscriber base watches ESPN, and the remaining 80% have to subsidize it.


It would depend on how you count it. More than 20% watch ESPN at some point - that's obvious just from the ratings of its most watched programming like the college football playoffs. But that's probably right for those who watch it regularly.

I would imagine Directv has a higher share of subscribers that watch ESPN because their subscriber base is more sports focused - due to NFLST if nothing else.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

ESPN is college sports like basketball. If you like that you watch ESPN. Remember also that now that there are these big college sport conferences they are demanding more if you want to be the network that carries their conference. There is greed everywhere. 
Also ESPN is part of Disney as is ABC - so I'm sure Disney insists on contracts with all.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mitchflorida said:


> ESPN averaged 2.1 million viewers, an 8% drop compared with last year when it averaged 2.3 million viewers.


And yet due to contracts they have well over 100 million subscribers. A good illustration of why ESPN wants to stay in core packages and be paid for by non-viewers. They would need to raise their subscription rate if they were only paid for by viewers. (A statement that would be true for most core channels.)

(The "average" of 2.1 million viewers are people watching different things at different times. The cume would be more interesting to see how many people tune in each month.)



mitchflorida said:


> Maybe the History Channel will start showing programs about history again?


Perhaps they should drill deeper into their ratings and find id their top rated shows are about history or are the "history made today" variety. The demise of H2 leads me to believe that they believe they will do better with non-historical documentary content.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-my-cable-bill-going-dish-network-time-warner-cable-directv-all-raising-rates-2016-2236468

*Excerpt from story in link.*
Time Warner Cable subscribers could see jumps of $10 a month or more come the new year; for DirecTV, the number is around $2 to $8 a month; and for Dish, around $5 a month for most packages. These increases may vary depending on the market you live in - pay-TV companies have found that in places where their competition isn't as strong, they can charge a little more.


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

No Joke jimmie57 COX is also doing it


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

For those that are complaining about the BS RSN fee (believe me, I complained about it for YEARS since I watch ZERO sports)... there is the "undocumented" Preferred Xtra package which is pretty much like the Total Choice Plus, except WITHOUT the RSN . You do, of course, loose all the BS sports channels you don't watch anyways... fine by me. Switching to the Preferred Xtra saved me like $4/mo of that BS RSN fee.

Pricing on DirecTV is ridiculous. If I wasn't getting my discounts, I would be at something like $130 a month for a base package, no extras, just DVR and HD, single outlet.

That's insane considering DirecTV PQ is garbage nowadays. Might look "fine" on your 1080P LCD, but try feeding it into a high quality, calibrated 4K OLED and you'll be singing a different tune for sure.

Amazing that GF is charging $60/mo for TV that's much higher PQ then DirecTV??? DirecTV is charging 2x+ GF. LMAO... can't wait til GF arrives in my town. Hopefully they'll start construction soon. Can't wait to jump off this overpriced titanic.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> For those that are complaining about the BS RSN fee (believe me, I complained about it for YEARS since I watch ZERO sports)... there is the "undocumented" Preferred Xtra package which is pretty much like the Total Choice Plus, except WITHOUT the RSN . You do, of course, loose all the BS sports channels you don't watch anyways... fine by me. Switching to the Preferred Xtra saved me like $4/mo of that BS RSN fee.


I wish I could, but though I hate the RSN fee the wife would kill me


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> For those that are complaining about the BS RSN fee (believe me, I complained about it for YEARS since I watch ZERO sports)... there is the "undocumented" Preferred Xtra package which is pretty much like the Total Choice Plus, except WITHOUT the RSN . You do, of course, loose all the BS sports channels you don't watch anyways... fine by me. Switching to the Preferred Xtra saved me like $4/mo of that BS RSN fee.
> 
> Pricing on DirecTV is ridiculous. If I wasn't getting my discounts, I would be at something like $130 a month for a base package, no extras, just DVR and HD, single outlet.
> 
> ...


Switch to the "SELECT PACKAGE" and save a LOT MORE


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

ragweed10 said:


> ragweed10, on 25 Dec 2015 - 9:35 PM, said:
> 
> Switch to the "SELECT PACKAGE" and save a LOT MORE


Yeah, unfortunately that package stinks. It's missing a *bunch* of "basic" (in my opinion) channels. It is half the price though.

Let me put it in perspective for all the folks who think DirecTV is still a "good deal".

DirecTV ~220 channels + HD + DVR = $75.99 + $10 HD + $10 DVR (non Genie) = $95.99 (sorry, dunno where I got the $130 from).
GF ~220 channels + HD + DVR = $60/mo!!

Yes, that's $96 on DirecTV vs. $60 on GF.

Also:

DirecTV DVR: (HR24) 500GB / 100hrs / 2 tuners
GF DVR: 2TB / 500hrs / appears that it can drive 20 devices

And of course, GF HD is at a much higher bit rate then DirecTV... GF does not recompress like DirecTV does. They give it to you straight from the original feed. There was a discussion about this earlier and some were skeptical , but based on my research, GF bitrate is like 2x what DirecTV does.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, unfortunately that package stinks. It's missing a *bunch* of "basic" (in my opinion) channels. It is half the price though.
> 
> Let me put it in perspective for all the folks who think DirecTV is still a "good deal".
> 
> ...


What channel are missing on the SELECT Package you want ?
The SELECT Package is $ 49.99
"DVR SERVICE" is for Entire Account $ 10.00
HD Service is FREE for NEW Customers
Genie is $ 7.00
TOTAL = $66.99
What is "GF" ?


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

I'm paying 130 a month for Xtra with an HR 34 and 2 clients. Definitely going to be dropping way down come the first of the year. Might have some other options opening up in the next year with the local telcom perhaps running fiber by me and the ATT wireless broadband. Don't want to initiate a 2 year deal or I would probably go the Dish route.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

ragweed10 said:


> ...
> What is "GF" ?


"Google Fiber" ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> "Google Fiber" ...
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


AH HAA !! Google Fiber, Sounds pretty Good, if it come my way.
Have any Dates when it will hit San Diego, CA ?


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

No date, but they have you in mind.

https://fiber.google.com/newcities/


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

Rockaway1836 said:


> No date, but they have you in mind.
> 
> https://fiber.google.com/newcities/


How About Prices ? and services


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

Click on one of the blue cities on the map. Not a ton of info, but it's a start.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

ragweed10 said:


> How About Prices ? and services


FWIW, GF is supposed to be coming to LA as well as rival AT&T's GigaPower internet service.

Anyway the newspapers here reported that GF's internet will be about $70.00 before taxes and surcharges a month for thier highly publicized 1 gb/s internet only service. And $130.00 before taxes and surcharges for this internet along with their 150 channel (at present) TV service.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

ragweed10 said:


> ragweed10, on 25 Dec 2015 - 11:19 PM, said:
> 
> What channel are missing on the SELECT Package you want ?
> The SELECT Package is $ 49.99
> ...


Off the top of my head H2, Biography, DIY, I think there were some others too... I did the comparison a while ago.

I've been with DirecTV since 2002, so I have to pay $10 for HD. If I got that package, it would be $69.99 for me for one TV. For the next year, at least, my Preferred Xtra with HD and DVR is coming in slightly lower then that due to "playing the retention department game" .

"GF" = "Google Fiber"

My city was just recently picked 9/2015, so I still probably have at least a year or more wait .


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> HoTat2, on 26 Dec 2015 - 09:47 AM, said:HoTat2, on 26 Dec 2015 - 09:47 AM, said:HoTat2, on 26 Dec 2015 - 09:47 AM, said:
> 
> FWIW, GF is supposed to be coming to LA as well as rival AT&T's GigaPower internet service.
> 
> ...


Yes, the pricing is $130 for 1Gb internet + (supposedly) 15Mb HD.

150 channels? I counted closer to 200+ (including locals). Attached the channel guide PDF.

PPVs seem to be the same price $5.99, but the DVR actually has a built in Netflix and VUDU app.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I think even Ragweed has commented about all the channels that need to be added to the select package. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## cmoss5 (May 26, 2006)

Just got letter today from Directv wirh new rates going into effect January 28,2016.
Mine is going up over $7...$4 for CHOICE packagee ....$3 for premium add ons and
.50 for TV FEE...from $0 to $1.97 for Regional Sports Fee....if you have Premier,
yours will be going up by about $10+ Directv says due to highter costs of programming.
Understand the Dish will be even worse next month than this.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Then you understand wrong for current Dish customers.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, unfortunately that package stinks. It's missing a *bunch* of "basic" (in my opinion) channels. It is half the price though.
> 
> Let me put it in perspective for all the folks who think DirecTV is still a "good deal".
> 
> ...


Google Fiber is not giving you an original feed. There is also no such thing as an original feed. Google does not have a direct link to every content provider. They are getting it the same as everyone else weather via fiber or satellite or other medium It was also claimed fios was giving people an original feed which was false GF is pushing the same average 15mbps per HD channel that Directv is


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

And in some markets Directv is a good deal. In my market Directv is 30 dollars a month cheaper for the same equipment and more channels that the local cable company


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

Google fiber has about 27,000 television customers, expansion has been slow, and it will never be available in rural areas. In many areas, the only real alternative to DirecTV is Dish, and that is not likely to change. 

Google Fiber was announced for our area in 2014, but it still is not clear when it will actually be available. At this point, it is just an empty promise. U-verse became available right at the time that the buyout of DirecTV became final. The only other option in my town is TWC. For my interests, DirecTV is by far the best choice. It is less expensive and more reliable than TWC (I had TWC and its predecessor, Cabelvision, for 20 years before I switched to DirrcTV), and has more of what I want than Dish.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Google Fiber is not giving you an original feed. There is also no such thing as an original feed. Google does not have a direct link to every content provider. They are getting it the same as everyone else weather via fiber or satellite or other medium It was also claimed fios was giving people an original feed which was false GF is pushing the same average 15mbps per HD channel that Directv is


Well there's a lot of different things at play but I can tell you DIRECTV does not use 15mbps for anything at the moment. Maybe 1/2 that or less. And they convert all Hi Definition to mpeg4 and most sources are still mpeg2 which is also why the bitrates alone don't tell a good story of the differences.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

And no channel that originates in MPEG4 has a C-Band feed that's 15 Mbps, most average half that.

If Google Fiber is using MPEG2, that makes more sense, since the networks distribute transcoding receivers which output MPEG2 HD feeds at 18 Mbps.


----------



## guyatrandom (Jan 5, 2016)

*Base package increases:* (By how much each one goes up in feb)

Select: 2 bucks
Entertainment: 2 bucks
Choice: 5 bucks
Preferred XTRA: 4 bucks
XTRA: 4 bucks
Ultimate: 5 bucks
Premier: 5 bucks

*The advanced receiver fees themselves will not change.*

*Per Receiver Costs:*
Additional TV_LSE: .50 increase
Addtional TV_OWN: .50 increase
Addtional TV: Client .50 Increase

*Regional Sports Fee Changes:*
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/rsn_fee

Compare the amount you see with your bill.

*Premium Channel Price Changes:*
forgive me, I've forgotten them.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Sorry, haven't looked lately, but the Premier pkg. increase is only $5.00? 

I thought it was $8.00?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Csn Chicago about $5 mo the cubs may kill them self's with there own network. Better to move most of the games to CSN if WGN can't pay them what then want. If they don't want to end up like sports net LA. Or maybe they can team up with ATT start an ATT owned local RSN and put the heat on comcrap.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Csn Chicago about $5 mo the cubs may kill them self's with there own network. Better to move most of the games to CSN if WGN can't pay them what then want. If they don't want to end up like sports net LA. Or maybe they can team up with ATT start an ATT owned local RSN and put the heat on comcrap.


But it "Comcrap" is stupid enough to give the Cubs a similar deal like TWC gave the Dodgers with a guaranteed ocean-liner full of money and where they assume full resposibility for all distribution deal headaches. ...

Why wouldn't the Cubs go for their own exclusive RSN as well?

As long as the Cubs continue to sell out the ballpark as do the Dodgers by brain dead loyal fans who don't care ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> But it "Comcrap" is stupid enough to give the Cubs a similar deal like TWC gave the Dodgers with a guaranteed ocean-liner full of money and where they assume full resposibility for all distribution deal headaches. ...
> 
> Why wouldn't the Cubs go for their own exclusive RSN as well?
> 
> As long as the Cubs continue to sell out the ballpark as do the Dodgers by brain dead loyal fans who don't care ...


Because if the Cubs are only available on TV in a minority of households then maybe over the years Chicago becomes a White Sox town? It has been suggested that may be the fate of the Dodgers if nothing changes.

And not just Chicago. The Cubs have a very large regional following and a very large multistate blackout region where you couldn't watch them on MLBEI/MLB.tv. I'm not sure if Comcast even operates in Iowa, and if they do they don't cover much of the state. That might be one way to update the archaic blackout rules that have the whole state of Iowa in region for 6 MLB teams if no one in the whole state could watch the Cubs...

Hopefully the Dodgers channel has taught everyone a lesson, but maybe Comcast and the Cubs owners are dumb enough to think "this time it will be different".


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Because if the Cubs are only available on TV in a minority of households then maybe over the years Chicago becomes a White Sox town? It has been suggested that may be the fate of the Dodgers if nothing changes.
> 
> And not just Chicago. The Cubs have a very large regional following and a very large multistate blackout region where you couldn't watch them on MLBEI/MLB.tv. I'm not sure if Comcast even operates in Iowa, and if they do they don't cover much of the state. That might be one way to update the archaic blackout rules that have the whole state of Iowa in region for 6 MLB teams if no one in the whole state could watch the Cubs...
> 
> Hopefully the Dodgers channel has taught everyone a lesson, but maybe Comcast and the Cubs owners are dumb enough to think "this time it will be different".


Also the cubs owners care about there fans. Also do want to be like Bill Wirtz? Or try $24.99 per home game PPV?


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

ESPN has one massive problem on their hand and it starts with football and basketball at smaller colleges. You'll see schools offer their own streaming package on Apple TV and cut ESPN out of the equation. From there the larger schools will take note as contracts expire. 

This is the music industry all over again.


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

saleen351 said:


> ESPN has one massive problem on their hand and it starts with football and basketball at smaller colleges. You'll see schools offer their own streaming package on Apple TV and cut ESPN out of the equation. From there the larger schools will take note as contracts expire.
> 
> This is the music industry all over again.


Well that there problem that how I see it Bye Bye ESPN


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

saleen351 said:


> ESPN has one massive problem on their hand and it starts with football and basketball at smaller colleges. You'll see schools offer their own streaming package on Apple TV and cut ESPN out of the equation. From there the larger schools will take note as contracts expire.


You're dreaming. There's no way they could make enough from streaming to compete with what they get from ESPN and other TV money. At least for the schools in the five major conferences, and some of the minor conferences that have TV deals for basketball.

How many people do you think watch the ESPN3 streams of those small school games today, even though they are free? The small schools would probably lose money on it if they tried to operate this themselves. Division II and III basketball games aren't exactly a gold mine Apple is going to bother going after.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

guyatrandom said:


> *Base package increases:* (By how much each one goes up in feb)
> 
> Select: 2 bucks
> Entertainment: 2 bucks
> ...


I dont see the grandfathered packages listed.


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

Here is what I had attached to my email bill.

http://www.directv.com/cms3/customer/DIRECTV_PRICING_2016/2016activepricing.pdf?cmp=emc-rescus-cus-trans-en-ebill-needtoknow


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You're dreaming. There's no way they could make enough from streaming to compete with what they get from ESPN and other TV money. At least for the schools in the five major conferences, and some of the minor conferences that have TV deals for basketball.
> 
> How many people do you think watch the ESPN3 streams of those small school games today, even though they are free? The small schools would probably lose money on it if they tried to operate this themselves. Division II and III basketball games aren't exactly a gold mine Apple is going to bother going after.
> 
> And if that all happened (and I think some will but most won't) no one would pay a monthly fee for small school sports The cost of production, marketing, etc. is too much for every one but the largest of conferences. ESPN provides conferences with a one complete package. Sure ESPN has issues as every other network now has sports only stations but it will survive and change. I remember the day when ESPN held only sports like ping pong and other things that were never on tv.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Also the cubs owners care about there fans. Also do want to be like Bill Wirtz? Or try $24.99 per home game PPV?


The Cubs missed the window. The Dodgers will get an average of 2.1M per game, for the next twenty years.

The Cub will get an average of 400k per game thru the life of their current contract, which expires in 2019.

In 2020, I would not be shocked if the 400k per game looks good to them.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> The Cubs missed the window. The Dodgers will get an average of 2.1M per game, for the next twenty years.
> 
> The Cub will get an average of 400k per game thru the life of their current contract, which expires in 2019.
> 
> In 2020, I would not be shocked if the 400k per game looks good to them.


Haha! That's funny. They will ask for a lot more. Bet on it. 

Sad part is they will get it to. Just look at the Clippers. Their contract is up and they want a ton more. They where offered significantly more. We will see where they end up. But FOX has said they won't do a Lakers type deal. (Granted Clippers where only asking for about half a Lakers deal I think) It was to big for them consider they don't want to get into fights for keeping their channels here on the air. Los Angeles has a lot of rsns at high prices.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

We will hit "peak sports" fairly soon, but we aren't there yet. Football may peak first since it is so much more expensive than everything else - the B1G renegotiation with ABC/ESPN and BTN's carriage rights negotiation with all the MVPDs next year will let us know if football has peaked or not yet.

I think what the Dodgers showed is that a single team channel is not a good model, but doesn't mean every subsequent contract will see no increase over current terms. There will be less willingness to take the kind of risk TWC did on such a long term contract, but the Cubs will get more money than they are getting now - especially if they finally win a Series in the next few years (don't laugh, for the first time in decades they are finally in a position where that's not a crazy prospect) I just don't think we'll see a "Cubs channel". That doesn't mean CSN Chicago wouldn't be willing to pay them over $1M/game, since they would also have White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Sorry, haven't looked lately, but the Premier pkg. increase is only $5.00?
> 
> I thought it was $8.00?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


It is indeed $8, not $5.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

KyL416 said:


> And no channel that originates in MPEG4 has a C-Band feed that's 15 Mbps, most average half that.
> 
> If Google Fiber is using MPEG2, that makes more sense, since the networks distribute transcoding receivers which output MPEG2 HD feeds at 18 Mbps.


I have also heard the GF quote of 15Mbps on MPEG4. I was talking to a guy over on AVS that just switched from DirecTV to GF and he said the difference in PQ is like night & day and he is a super, super, super picky pro calibrator.

I can tell you that I have been dropping AT&T services left and right and only have one left (DirecTV) and that's gone when GF arrives (still probably 1+ yr out  )... Sorry, but AT&T just charges ridiculous prices and are nowhere near competitive.

I was paying $90/mo on AT&T for a very crappy cell plan. Moved over to T-Mobile a few years ago and got unlimited talk & text and 1 or 2 GB data for $24/mo/person. Yeah, its a family plan, but doing the family plan on AT&T (even with my corp discount) would have been $40/mo/person! Some of you might scoff at the 1 - 2GB data plan and say you'd burn through that in an hour LOL... well... yeah, but at work I'm on wifi and at home I'm also on WiFi and mainly use the PC, so its not a big deal. I'm certainly not going to watch movies on my tiny phone.

Have a basic land line and they just raised the rates up to $42/mo for a local only package! Am in the process of dropping that and going to Cox for $16/mo free nationwide! I currently have internet with them for $61.99/mo (65Mb) + the $16/mo for phone now.

Cox is supposed to have Fiber in my area in a few months, way ahead of Google, but I don't see them competing on price with Google. Plus, might as well do the TV & internet bundle with Google for the PQ.

But, to be fair, the guy on AVS that I was talking too said the Google DVR is very much a "work in progress" and still looks like amateur hour. I'm willing to make that sacrifice as I spend more time watching the picture then hanging out in the guide & menu .


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> I have also heard the GF quote of 15Mbps on MPEG4. I was talking to a guy over on AVS that just switched from DirecTV to GF and he said the difference in PQ is like night & day and he is a super, super, super picky pro calibrator.
> 
> I can tell you that I have been dropping AT&T services left and right and only have one left (DirecTV) and that's gone when GF arrives (still probably 1+ yr out  )... Sorry, but AT&T just charges ridiculous prices and are nowhere near competitive.
> 
> ...


You have a LOT of Good points. Especially watching a movie on a phone !
Hope Google gets the DVR up to speed. Sounds like they have a Lot going for them.
But you forgot to mention AT&T's customer service. That may be the Final Nail in the Coffin.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

codespy said:


> Count me as one of the subs getting nailed on this round of increases. Usually premier goes up in $5.00 increments not $8.00, coupled with my 13 HD-DVR's, I'm guessing my bill goes up $14.71 including tax every month/$177.00 a year? Of course the DVR fee didn't go up at all, because I get that for free.
> 
> Hopefully these increases come with a complimentary jar of something!


Update 1/12/16- I went on DirecTV's website and clicked on the RSN fee for the heck of it. Entered my zip code and it comes up that we here in Wisconsin will also pay an extra $1.97 + tax for month for the fee for the first time ever. It covers BTN costs and others, but realize it may be less than other subs pay in different areas. That pushes my 1/28/16 price increase to a total of $201.36 for a year on my account. Now THAT is a steep increase.

Anyone think AT&T will change the rules and allow account stacking? 

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

codespy said:


> Anyone think AT&T will change the rules and allow account stacking?


Certainly not. But if you would like to send them your name, address and account number I am sure they will be interested if you are involved in a stack.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

codespy said:


> Update 1/12/16- I went on DirecTV's website and clicked on the RSN fee for the heck of it. Entered my zip code and it comes up that we here in Wisconsin will also pay an extra $1.97 + tax for month for the fee for the first time ever. It covers BTN costs and others, but realize it may be less than other subs pay in different areas. That pushes my 1/28/16 price increase to a total of $201.36 for a year on my account. Now THAT is a steep increase.
> 
> Anyone think AT&T will change the rules and allow account stacking?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


What is account stacking ?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ragweed10 said:


> What is account stacking ?


Multiple households sharing an account. Instead of a second household paying full price for their service they would pay an additional receiver fee. It is a violation of the terms of service of all cable and satellite services that I know of. (For cable it historically was done by splicing a cable to a neighboring home or business.)

DIRECTV (and others) attempt to detect and prevent stacking. Under DIRECTV's terms of service an additional receiver that is not in the same household will be billed at the full subscription cost instead of the additional outlet fee.

Stacking is fraud. Please do not do it.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

James Long said:


> Multiple households sharing an account. Instead of a second household paying full price for their service they would pay an additional receiver fee. It is a violation of the terms of service of all cable and satellite services that I know of. (For cable it historically was done by splicing a cable to a neighboring home or business.)
> 
> DIRECTV (and others) attempt to detect and prevent stacking. Under DIRECTV's terms of service an additional receiver that is not in the same household will be billed at the full subscription cost instead of the additional outlet fee.
> 
> Stacking is fraud. Please do not do it.


Yep, ... that's why especially if you have an extraordinary lot of boxes on your account, DIRECTV techs. are supposed to make sure every box listed on the account is actually on the premises during any service call.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> Yep, ... that's why especially if you have an extraordinary lot of boxes on your account, DIRECTV techs. are supposed to make sure every box listed on the account is actually on the premises during any service call.


That only works if you have a service call, and would be easy to avoid for someone who can fix their own problems. I'm sure they must have other ways, like checking the IP address geolocation of receivers that are connected to the internet. I doubt it is all that hard to avoid getting caught, but in the future where there are only gateways and clients it would be a lot harder. Especially if they require all gateways active on an account to be able to communicate to each other to verify they are at the same physical location.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> That only works if you have a service call, and would be easy to avoid for someone who can fix their own problems. I'm sure they must have other ways, like checking the IP address geolocation of receivers that are connected to the internet. I doubt it is all that hard to avoid getting caught, but in the future where there are only gateways and clients it would be a lot harder. Especially if they require all gateways active on an account to be able to communicate to each other to verify they are at the same physical location.


I know ...

But that was the only method DIRECTV mentioned in a training video I saw on the issue of stacking fraud a long while ago. 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

James Long said:


> Certainly not. But if you would like to send them your name, address and account number I am sure they will be interested if you are involved in a stack.


It was a hypothetical question J....never said I was involved in one....it's all good, and they have my information already since 1998 and the IP address with my IRD's connected. Back to the topic though, a $200+ dollar increase for one year is a little steep. The days of Premier are probably numbered for some of us subs down the road.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

codespy said:


> It was a hypothetical question J....never said I was involved in one....it's all good, and they have my information already since 1998 and the IP address with my IRD's connected. Back to the topic though, a $200+ dollar increase for one year is a little steep. The days of Premier are probably numbered for some of us subs down the road.


A price increase of $201.36? I thought you had misspoke and were referring to a price increase to $201.36.
How is that as a percentage?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> A price increase of $201.36? I thought you had misspoke and were referring to a price increase to $201.36.
> How is that as a percentage?


He's meaning an increase of $201.36 for the year.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> He's meaning an increase of $201.36 for the year.


That makes sense ... $16.78 more per month.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> That only works if you have a service call, and would be easy to avoid for someone who can fix their own problems. I'm sure they must have other ways, like checking the IP address geolocation of receivers that are connected to the internet. I doubt it is all that hard to avoid getting caught, but in the future where there are only gateways and clients it would be a lot harder. Especially if they require all gateways active on an account to be able to communicate to each other to verify they are at the same physical location.


What about RV's / mobile / airplanes?

Hotel's / bar's that don't use the internet links on the boxes.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> What about RV's / mobile / airplanes?
> 
> Hotel's / bar's that don't use the internet links on the boxes.


Not saying it is foolproof, just another strategy they could use. After all there's no requirement for residential customers to hook their receivers up to the internet (technically there is, but Directv has never enforced that or the phone line requirement) so you can't catch all residential stackers that way.

For hotels/bars stacking is a copyright issue - if one bar had 20 receivers on its account but the owner actually owned two bars that 'shared' the receivers licensed for on and gets caught it would be a huge fine.

The way people typically cheat there is bringing receivers from home - i.e. sign up for NFLST at home, bring a few receivers from home to your bar to show it for $300 a year instead of the many thousands it actually costs. They usually get caught if they advertise it, since Directv and the NFL know who is legally signed up for NFLST so if a place is advertising it isn't signed up they'll catch them. If you don't tell anyone you have it you might not get caught, but not telling anyone about it would defeat the purpose of having it 

I read about someone who got caught because he had like 10 receivers on his home account but he lived in an apartment. So they thought it was suspicious and sent someone to check it out. His apartment was right above his bar, and he claimed the installer made a mistake and put down the wrong unit number when installing it, but it didn't fly!


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

OK, according to the announcement I should have seen an increase of $4 for Choice, and another 0.50 for the TV service (these charges for things like having a TV are really dumb.)

What I ended up with was about an $8 increase. 4 for "Channels - got that. But $2 increase for Equipment Services? Where did that come from? (1 Genie, 2 minis.) Also $1.75 in "Other charges" - is that regional sports?

As soon as my contract runs out, back to Dish. I've had both, I know the pluses and minuses of both, I thing Charlie is worse than Directv (don't know about AT&T) about losing channels due to his ego, but, while Dish had price increases, with Directv it seems like the only way to keep your pricing down to reasonable is to call them every 6 months or so and play the "DId you get your bill lowered" thread game.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

fudpucker said:


> OK, according to the announcement I should have seen an increase of $4 for Choice, and another 0.50 for the TV service (these charges for things like having a TV are really dumb.)
> 
> What I ended up with was about an $8 increase. 4 for "Channels - got that. But $2 increase for Equipment Services? Where did that come from? (1 Genie, 2 minis.) Also $1.75 in "Other charges" - is that regional sports?
> 
> As soon as my contract runs out, back to Dish. I've had both, I know the pluses and minuses of both, I thing Charlie is worse than Directv (don't know about AT&T) about losing channels due to his ego, but, while Dish had price increases, with Directv it seems like the only way to keep your pricing down to reasonable is to call them every 6 months or so and play the "DId you get your bill lowered" thread game.


It amazes me how people want their pay TV bill lowered but never consider tightening their belt to accomplish it.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> It amazes me how people want their pay TV bill lowered but never consider tightening their belt to accomplish it.


Some do. I turned off a receiver last year to lower mine. I am considering dropping my DVR service and that will just drive me nuts. About half or more of the shows I watch are on NBC, CBS and ABC and I do have a Channel Master OTA DVR that I can record all of those with.

I just turned off my long distance phone service in favor of using a cell phone with a prepaid / no contract plan.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> It amazes me how people want their pay TV bill lowered but never consider tightening their belt to accomplish it.


That sounds like quite an assumption on your part.


----------

