# DIRECTV Pirate Pleads Guilty



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

A 53-year-old South Carolina video pirate pled guilty this week to distributing illegally modified DIRECTV access cards. In U.S. District Court in Paducah, KY, Michael C. Hill entered the guilty plea to engaging in a conspiracy to distribute the devices designed to gain unauthorized access to the satellite company's programming.

Announced by David Huber, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky, Hill could face a maximum of five years in prison and as much as a $250,000 fine. According to DIRECTV, two other defendants in the case have already received prison sentences.

The satcaster said Hill is a former DIRECTV dealer who was involved with an international group responsible for one of the earliest hacks of the company's system. DIRECTV said the pirate admitted during his guilty plea to distributing 437 of the illegal devices to both end-users and other members of the scheme between March 1996 and February 1999.

DIRECTV said Hill was charged under a federal statute that makes it a crime to manufacture, distribute or use counterfeit electronic access devices, such as credit and debit cards, and consumer satellite TV access cards. The company said the technology encrypted into its latest version of access cards - distributed in 2002 - has yet to be compromised.

The two other defendants in the case are Gregory Chaffin and Jeffrey Sanders - both charged and pled guilty to manufacturing and selling the devices. The men were sentenced in October 2006 to one year in prison, however since the ruling, Rath - a Canadian citizen - fled the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts and cannot be found

---
Source: SkyREPORT - http://www.skyreport.com/archives/view/?publication_id=1&release_id=130#Story1


----------



## cnmsales (Jan 9, 2007)

I find it VERY hard to believe that there new access cards have not been compromised.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Unlike the teacher fella, this guy deserved what he got. The reason current and future cards have not and will not be compromised is because of the changes to the Canadian laws.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

No, it's because the P4, D1, P5, or whatever they're called now, are impervious to hacking. DirecTV finally got their act together and made cards that since April 2003 have been impenetrable.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

So can the hacked cards, pre these new "uncrackable" cards, still be used? An installer told me one time that when new cards come out that D* sends out new ones and disables acces to the old ones. I don't know how that would work but that's what he told me.


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

Nope.. old cards are obsolete basically.. 

So basically now it's like "in with the new, and out with the old"

Old cards / "pre uncrackable" cards - can't be used any longer...
New cards / "uncrackable" cards - are used currently, remaining "uncrackable" (or that's what being said out there, which is more likely a true fact)


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

The last cards that could be hacked were the old Hu cards. Once DTV shut down the Hu datastream (i.e. the transmitted data that allowed the Hu cards to function) there has been no reported breeches in the security of any subsequent access cards issued by NDS and DTV. I think th eonly reason the Hu cards stayed around as long as they did was to allow DTV to track the weaknesses exploited by the hackers so they could see how to make any subsequent cards impenetrable. I believe DTV has released 2 or 3 subsequent versions of their access cards since the demise of the Hu cards, meaning that the latest cards are even more hack-proof than earlier versions.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> No, it's because the P4, D1, P5, or whatever they're called now, are *impervious to hacking*. DirecTV finally got their act together and made cards that since April 2003 have been impenetrable.


As far as you know. You think if someone found a way they would release after all that is going on?

If they were smart they would keep it to themselves and enjoy the ride.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

No single individual would be able to keep something as significant as a P4/P5 hack to himself. It would be a MAJOR coup for a hacker.

Simply stated, there is no hack of a DirecTV access card at this time. They finally got it right.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

Ok so if the new cards are hack proof, and the old HU cards are no longer able to recieve programming even when hacked, why haven't our programming costs been reduced? I've read in a few places that the programming costs are higher because of people stealing the signal. If no one is stealing the signal then why don't the programming prices go down?


----------



## cnmsales (Jan 9, 2007)

MX6, good one bro. I agree. Pricing only continues to go up, not down. Companies say all the time, including D* that thieves force them to raise prices. Well then thats taken care of I think we should all get lower pricing.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

And you two are so naive to believe everything you hear?


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> No, it's because the P4, D1, P5, or whatever they're called now, are impervious to hacking. DirecTV finally got their act together and made cards that since April 2003 have been impenetrable.


all it would take in my best guess is a "Rolling" alogorithim to change the codes daily to really hamper someone selling fixed cards anyway. You'd just have to limit who has access to the alogarithim and one of the variables could be the last 4 digits of an access card that is in the data stream as a subscribed card. Like I said just my "uneducated" guess.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> And you two are so naive to believe everything you hear?


No, but am I not allowed to ask a question?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> all it would take in my best guess is a "Rolling" algorithm to change the codes daily to really hamper someone selling fixed cards anyway. You'd just have to limit who has access to the algorithm and one of the variables could be the last 4 digits of an access card that is in the data stream as a subscribed card. Like I said just my "uneducated" guess.


Some time back, D* would change the code twice a week & all of the cards would need to be reprogrammed with the new codes [posted on a website], but this is all "history" now. FWIW


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> Ok so if the new cards are hack proof, and the old HU cards are no longer able to recieve programming even when hacked, why haven't our programming costs been reduced? I've read in a few places that the programming costs are higher because of people stealing the signal. If no one is stealing the signal then why don't the programming prices go down?


How long does it take to recoupe millions of dollars.

Get real. Plus DirecTV does not raise there prices like cable.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Blitz68 said:


> How long does it take to recoupe millions of dollars.
> 
> Get real. Plus DirecTV does not raise there prices like cable.


I don't even understand how it is a "loss". The signal is there, they just devised a way to "descramble" it. People who do that (low lifes) wouldn't pay for service anyway.


----------



## Mark20 (Dec 25, 2006)

D*'s costs for programming, services, personnel and such do go up but I think they know people are "content" paying X dollars for what they are getting and will continue to pay that amount.

A certain percentage of people getting the service without paying may just be scared enough by these reports that they ditch their hacked card and become subscribers at some level.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

Blitz68 said:


> How long does it take to recoupe millions of dollars.
> 
> Get real. Plus DirecTV does not raise there prices like cable.


How long have these new cards been out? If it's been over 2 years I would think they would be able to start re-couping some of that lost "millions" by new subs, court cases, etc.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Blitz68 said:


> How long does it take to recoupe millions of dollars.
> 
> Get real. Plus DirecTV does not raise there prices like cable.


I don't understand. If people are using Hacked cards, then they aren't paying for service - BUT - that also means, DirecTV is not paying their content providers for that customer either...

I'm wondering if the content providers though are wanting back pay?


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

"why haven't our programming costs been reduced" = so revenues could become higher


----------



## ericpd (Apr 26, 2007)

mx6bfast said:


> Ok so if the new cards are hack proof, and the old HU cards are no longer able to recieve programming even when hacked, why haven't our programming costs been reduced? I've read in a few places that the programming costs are higher because of people stealing the signal. If no one is stealing the signal then why don't the programming prices go down?


Didn't you know,... Corporations are allowed to steal from us, but we're not allowed to steal from them. It would be nice if Congress showed the same enthusiasm to protect us from corporate theft as they do in protecting corporations from individual theft.

Personally, God bless these folks who have the where-with-all to get the signal without paying for it,... especially since it is now clear that there is absolutely no corrolation between hacking and what these corporations charge us. God bless 'em!


----------



## Elephanthead (Feb 3, 2007)

I just wish DTV would put as much effort into customer service as they put into extorting cash settlements from pirates.


----------



## DrEricCarlson (Mar 6, 2007)

ericpd said:


> Didn't you know,... Corporations are allowed to steal from us, but we're not allowed to steal from them. It would be nice if Congress showed the same enthusiasm to protect us from corporate theft as they do in protecting corporations from individual theft.
> 
> Personally, God bless these folks who have the where-with-all to get the signal without paying for it,... especially since it is now clear that there is absolutely no corrolation between hacking and what these corporations charge us. God bless 'em!


Exactly how are they stealing from you?  If you don't want their service, if you think the cost is too high.... then just cancel it. It's not like they are forcing their service on you. Just because you don't like the cost doesn't make it theft.

I am glad that the pirates were caught. Hopefully that will keep more people from trying to steal DirecTV's signal and actually pay for the service. This will help DirecTV to grow and give them the resources to build better service for me and all their subscribers.


----------



## ericpd (Apr 26, 2007)

DrEricCarlson said:


> Exactly how are they stealing from you?  If you don't want their service, if you think the cost is too high.... then just cancel it. It's not like they are forcing their service on you. Just because you don't like the cost doesn't make it theft.
> 
> I am glad that the pirates were caught. Hopefully that will keep more people from trying to steal DirecTV's signal and actually pay for the service. This will help DirecTV to grow and give them the resources to build better service for me and all their subscribers.


Well they do force in a way. Now that the free Networks either have large investments in paid programming, or the paid programmers owning the free Networks, they've purposely lowered free programming to a level mediocracy. It's already to the point where some prime time NFL games are broadcast ONLY on pay channels, and that's just a start. So in a way, there is an effort to push as many viewers as they can to pay to view,... that's an indirect force. There's was a C-net article that spoke of this trend. I'm not doing it justice, but they made it quite clear that programming decisions on both sides of the pay/free fence are being made by the same folks, and their decisions are designed to move as many people as possible from free programming to paid programming.

Look man, I'm not advocating that people should be allowed to profit from pirating signals from DirecTV,... I was venting an opinion about how corporations in general, are allowed to make up stuff out of thin air to bill us for. But back to this industry,... here's an example from that C-net article. All of the companies charge us about 5 bucks for DVR "service". There's no "service" rendered or "cost" incurred by DirecTV if you should decide to push the record button on your remote. DVR recording is a function of the box you have,... way different than VOD, which IS a service. They don't provide any added service to make DVR recording happen. The courts have already ruled, and Congress has already decided that program providers can't charge Dish, DirecTV or any of the others, any additional charges based on who has and who do not have recording capabilities built into their STB's. That was decided way back when Tivo boxes became real popular. So if Disney isn't allowed to charge DirecTV added fees because DirecTV leased you a DVR box, and there's nothing additional in terms of service or cost DirecTV needs to address in order for you to record your favorite program, then what is the monthly 5 bucks for? If we used our "not so honest' creativity to lessen our bill 5 bucks per month without cause, they'd call it scimming and would denouce any one of us as theives. But the D*'s and E*'s are allowed to pound us with dead-end faux charges that represent no actual service or costs incurred, and no one wants to call gouging,... which IS a form of theft.

I'm just saying I wished Congress would protect us from charges that can't honestly be tied to something received with the same enthusiam that they protect the companies from our efforts to get creative and get something for nothing.

Oh,... BTW. I pay my bills and have no desire to receive something for nothing.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

The pirates that used to have Directv,now have Dishnetwork.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

ericpd said:


> But back to this industry, all of the companies charge us 5 bucks for DVR service. There's no service involved in recording programs. Recording is a function of the box you have,... way different than VOD, which IS a service. They don't provide any added service to make recording happen. The courts have already ruled and the Congress has already written that program providers can't charge Dish, DirecTV or any of the others, any additional charges based on who has and who do not have recording capabilities built into their STB's. That was decided way back when Tivo boxes became real popular. So if Disney isn't allowed to charge DirecTV added fees because DirecTV leased you a DVR box, and there's nothing additional in terms of service DirecTV needs to do in order for you to record your favorite program, then what is the monthly 5 bucks for?


Last I checked, TiVo, DirecTv, Dish, Cable, all DVR rpoviders charge some kind of fee. The "functionality" to record is programmed into the boxes, but at least the DVRs I've seen have been designed to record based on program guide info. TiVo charges anywhere from free (with a lifetime subscription) to $7-$13 if I'm not mistaken. DirecTv, $5.99. This is overly simplistic, but basically the "additional service" they provide that makes the DVRs functional is the program guide (and those of us who had DirecTiVos know what can happen when that program guide stream gets screwed up).

I just can't agree that the fees being charged by DVR companies is for 'air' - there is a substantive service behind those charges.


----------



## cavihitts (Mar 11, 2007)

mx6bfast said:


> Ok so if the new cards are hack proof, and the old HU cards are no longer able to recieve programming even when hacked, why haven't our programming costs been reduced? I've read in a few places that the programming costs are higher because of people stealing the signal. If no one is stealing the signal then why don't the programming prices go down?


I'm not trying to stir up anything because it should not be discussed, but there are other forms of piracy than hacking access cards. So Directv is still going to be spending money combating this.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

cavihitts said:


> I'm not trying to stir up anything because it should not be discussed, but there are other forms of piracy than hacking access cards. So Directv is still going to be spending money combating this.


What other kinds of piracy? Why wouldn't we be able to discuss it?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> What other kinds of piracy? Why wouldn't we be able to discuss it?


The mods don't want this forum to be a place for hackings. They have worked hard to make this what it is and to work with D*. Doing illegal things isn't what they want with their site. It's theirs, so when we come here, we follow their guide lines.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

mx6bfast said:


> What other kinds of piracy? Why wouldn't we be able to discuss it?


Canadians using US addresses.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> Ok so if the new cards are hack proof, and the old HU cards are no longer able to recieve programming even when hacked, why haven't our programming costs been reduced? I've read in a few places that the programming costs are higher because of people stealing the signal. If no one is stealing the signal then why don't the programming prices go down?


Well let's see,the programmers get increases every year and the costs of everything goes up every year.Also someone's got to subsidize all these new satellites being built and launched.Employees deserve an increase every year.Yea I think that should cover it.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> The mods don't want this forum to be a place for hackings. They have worked hard to make this what it is and to work with D*. Doing illegal things isn't what they want with their site. It's theirs, so when we come here, we follow their guide lines.


No problem. I was a lurker on this site for a while before I joined so I don't know where it came from or any problems they had.

While I don't want to steal D*, and at $140 a month it'd be nice on my pocketbook if I could get it for free  , I was just curious.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> No problem. I was a lurker on this site for a while before I joined so I don't know where it came from or any problems they had.
> 
> While I don't want to steal D*, and at $140 a month it'd be nice on my pocketbook if I could get it for free  , I was just curious.


I think we all could use "a break".


----------



## ericpd (Apr 26, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Last I checked, TiVo, DirecTv, Dish, Cable, all DVR rpoviders charge some kind of fee. The "functionality" to record is programmed into the boxes, but at least the DVRs I've seen have been designed to record based on program guide info. TiVo charges anywhere from free (with a lifetime subscription) to $7-$13 if I'm not mistaken. DirecTv, $5.99. This is overly simplistic, but basically the "additional service" they provide that makes the DVRs functional is the program guide (and those of us who had DirecTiVos know what can happen when that program guide stream gets screwed up).
> 
> I just can't agree that the fees being charged by DVR companies is for 'air' - there is a substantive service behind those charges.


Non-sense! Program guides were a reality long before DVRing became a hit. Program guides weren't brought to the table so that DVR could be brought to the market. Besides, the D*'s and E*'s of the world get their program guide info directly from the program providers. There's no separate industry providing program guides for this use. Now Tivo was a different animal. Since they were not a broadcast company purchasing program material, they were forced to pay for the guide info,... just the guide info. Then Tivo pass along those costs by way of subscription fees. But because D & E are buying actual programming, the guide stuff comes with it, representing no additional charges to D & E.

So I ask again,... what is DVR service? Why are we being charged 5 buck monthly for absolutely nothing? And most important, why isn't Congress protecting us from this obvious practice of gouging?


----------



## jimmyt (Mar 9, 2005)

one thing that many forget.. the old h and hu cards were never truly hacked - you still had to have a valid card id (CAM) , the hacks were nothing more than exploits that found a crack in security and allowed rogue code to be executed on the card - but no one ever cracked the zkt (zero knowledge test) which would be the true hack and would have allowed any card to work all the time without fear of looping or bin blacklisting - or so I have read


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

ZKT has been defeated by ignoring as I recall. Those mod been posted over Internet that time. 

Well, do we turn the thread into memoirs ?


----------



## jimmyt (Mar 9, 2005)

interesting.. I thought the zkt was the key to getting blacklisted cams to work again.. or so I read


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

BL and ZKT was diff things.


----------



## DrEricCarlson (Mar 6, 2007)

ericpd said:


> Non-sense! Program guides were a reality long before DVRing became a hit. Program guides weren't brought to the table so that DVR could be brought to the market. Besides, the D*'s and E*'s of the world get their program guide info directly from the program providers. There's no separate industry providing program guides for this use. Now Tivo was a different animal. Since they were not a broadcast company purchasing program material, they were forced to pay for the guide info,... just the guide info. Then Tivo pass along those costs by way of subscription fees. But because D & E are buying actual programming, the guide stuff comes with it, representing no additional charges to D & E.
> 
> So I ask again,... what is DVR service? Why are we being charged 5 buck monthly for absolutely nothing? And most important, why isn't Congress protecting us from this obvious practice of gouging?


Actually you are wrong. DirecTV does not get their DVR guide directly from the program providers but instead they do get it from an "separate industry providing " company called Tribune. The DVR guide is different then the regular guide because it provides guide data for 14 days instead of only three that the non-DVRs have. That way you can schedule recordings two weeks in advance instead of every three days. Also DirecTV has to send you the guide data for your DVR separately from the guide data sent to non-DVR receivers so they have to pay for transmission of this data. This again costs them money which they have to recoup. 
Now, do we pay more for this service then it costs? Probably, but that is what a business is for, to make money. They are not a non-profit organization. I have to say again using your example if you don't think you are getting your moneys worth paying for this service then stop paying the fee. Obviously many people think it is worth it to pay $6 a month for DVR service (myself included).

This is NOT price gouging. They are providing you a service at a cost. If you don't want the service then don't pay for it, it's that simple. Use your wallet as your complaint, don't look to congress every-time you don't like the price of a service. Better yet, start your own satellite broadcast company and you can give out DVR service for free.


----------



## ericpd (Apr 26, 2007)

DrEricCarlson said:


> Actually you are wrong. DirecTV does not get their DVR guide directly from the program providers but instead they do get it from an "separate industry providing " company called Tribune. The DVR guide is different then the regular guide because it provides guide data for 14 days instead of only three that the non-DVRs have. That way you can schedule recordings two weeks in advance instead of every three days. Also DirecTV has to send you the guide data for your DVR separately from the guide data sent to non-DVR receivers so they have to pay for transmission of this data. This again costs them money which they have to recoup.
> Now, do we pay more for this service then it costs? Probably, but that is what a business is for, to make money. They are not a non-profit organization. I have to say again using your example if you don't think you are getting your moneys worth paying for this service then stop paying the fee. Obviously many people think it is worth it to pay $6 a month for DVR service (myself included).


Oh,... ok. I've heard of Tribune from my old Tivo days. I stand corrected. But I think you are mistaken on the 14 day vs 3 day for non-DVR subs. My mother doesn't have a DVR or HD receivers,... she's got the standard vanilla receivers they give away. She has 14 day guide info just like I do with Dish. I know a few more folks out there with 14 day guides and no DVR or HD receivers in the house. So sending 14 days ONLY to DVR receivers and 3 days to non-DVR receivers is not true! Even in my home where I have a mix, I get the same guide info on my 811 as I do on my 942. And if DirecTV is like Dish, I probably will get the same guide info on my HR20 as I will on the nonDVR receiver when my install arrives.

And no, it's not obvious many people think it's worth it. You're confusing 'whether many people think it's worth it' with 'whether most people think they have other option than to pay the fee'. Big difference. The only other choice for many is not to have TV at all, and for most, not to have the programming they want. Trust me,... if people had a REAL choice between paying 6 extra dollars per month and not have to give up programming to exercise that choice, there'd only be you and a few others who would pay that fee. You're using the same argument they used to use against women who found themselves victims of domestic violence,... "just leave". We've since accepted the weakness and falicy in that argument when choice leads to a zero-sum option. Same here! This faux choice you're promoting leads to no service at all,... a zero-sum option!



DrEricCarlson said:


> This is NOT price gouging. They are providing you a service at a cost. If you don't want the service then don't pay for it, it's that simple. Use your wallet as your complaint, don't look to congress every-time you don't like the price of a service. Better yet, start your own satellite broadcast company and you can give out DVR service for free.


Just because you provide a service doesn't disqualify you from price gouging. Ask those dealers caught selling gas (a service) at insane prices on the heels of a catasrophy. And again, it's not as simple as you want it to be. You're right about one thing though, I like the "Use your wallet as your complaint, don't look to congress every time you don't like,..." I wonder if you'd support those same words directed at the companies when they scurry off to Congress everytime there's a practice they don't like. I don't think you would. Like I said in my first post, I'd be happy if Congress laws to protect us with the same enthusiam they display passing laws to protect the companies. They whine more to Congress than we (excepting you of course) do.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

ericpd said:


> And no, it's not obvious many people think it's worth it. You're confusing 'whether many people think it's worth it' with 'whether most people think they have other option than to pay the fee'. Big difference. The only other choice for many is not to have TV at all, and for most, not to have the programming they want. Trust me,... if people had a REAL choice between paying 6 extra dollars per month and not have to give up programming to exercise that choice, there'd only be you and a few others who would pay that fee. You're using the same argument they used to use against women who found themselves victims of domestic violence,... "just leave". We've since accepted the weakness and falicy in that argument when choice leads to a zero-sum option. Same here! This faux choice you're promoting leads to no service at all,... a zero-sum option!


Dude, how do you get from not paying the $5.99 a month for *DVR* service to not having any programming at all???

If you don't want to pay for DVR service, then don't. That doesn't leave you with no programming at all - you still get whatever programming you pay for (of course, you probably need a different receiver, then, but that's your choice).

From someone who has had TiVo and/or DVR for the better part of a decade, the $5.99 a month for DVR service is well worth it to me. And I would have to agree with the good Doctor that for people who have used DVR service, it changes the way you watch TV for most of us and $5.99 a month is certainly worth it. And last I heard, $5.99 a month for the entire account is pretty near the bottom of what is being charged for DVR service, so I just can't buy your 'price gouging' argument either.

Would it be nicer if there was no such fee? Ya, 6 bucks a month is 6 bucks a month. But the alternative is not having DVR service if you don't want to pay it, not losing your programming all together.


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

I wouldn't mind the $5.99 a month for DVR service if the option were that without it, you could only do timer recordings like a VCR. But no, they won't give you that. Why they won't do it that way they won't say, but I bet it would be an interesting answer. Maybe they think if you do just timer recordings, no one would want to pay extra.

I'll wait for a DVR that has this capability, till then I'm still using VCRs. -A-


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Art7220 said:


> I wouldn't mind the $5.99 a month for DVR service if the option were that without it, you could only do timer recordings like a VCR. But no, they won't give you that. Why they won't do it that way they won't say, but I bet it would be an interesting answer. Maybe they think if you do just timer recordings, no one would want to pay extra.
> 
> I'll wait for a DVR that has this capability, till then I'm still using VCRs. -A-


A standard HD receiver + VCR will give you just that. If you want a digital recording, then D* gets the $6 a month.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

"But back to this industry,... here's an example from that C-net article. All of the companies charge us about 5 bucks for DVR "service". There's no "service" rendered or "cost" incurred by DirecTV if you should decide to push the record button on your remote."

No, but there's more cost to manufacture, install, and provide support+service to customers. 

DVRs >will< break, because they have moving parts...and they're more complicated, causing more returns, tech support, call-ins to figure out how to do such-and-such from people too dumb to watch the video or read the manual.

I think DVRs are a slight "loss" compared to standard digital STBs, but are seen as an item that keeps a customer hooked, because there's 20 movies they haven't watched, and will lose if they switch. Some study claims a customer wiht a DVR is 20% less likely to switch services, and CEO types love published studies, even if they aren't smart enough to read between the lines (free dvr = switchover)


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

"So I ask again,... what is DVR service? Why are we being charged 5 buck monthly for absolutely nothing? And most important, why isn't Congress protecting us from this obvious practice of gouging?"

because, if D* was challenged, they could easily prove that the average DVR customer costs at least $5 more a month than if they did not have a DVR.

Again, the operation and mechanics of a DVR are more confusing, and surely generate more phone calls, repairs, et-cetera.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

I personally think the $6 / month is quite cheap compared to always having to change tapes and the cost of new tapes. And the features of these devices are amazing. Of course, we have 8 DVR's so I'm bias.

But if you want the ability to record by time or don't want to pay the DVR fee, perhaps setting up a computer with a TV tuner is for you? ATI All In WOnders I think even come with free VCR type software.

But yeah, the DVR fee of $6 / month seems a bit steap if all you want to do is record by time and channel.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

mx6bfast said:


> No, but am I not allowed to ask a question?


Not without my permission.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

ericpd said:


> Oh,... ok. I've heard of Tribune from my old Tivo days. I stand corrected. But I think you are mistaken on the 14 day vs 3 day for non-DVR subs. My mother doesn't have a DVR or HD receivers,... she's got the standard vanilla receivers they give away. She has 14 day guide info just like I do with Dish. I know a few more folks out there with 14 day guides and no DVR or HD receivers in the house. So sending 14 days ONLY to DVR receivers and 3 days to non-DVR receivers is not true! Even in my home where I have a mix, I get the same guide info on my 811 as I do on my 942. And if DirecTV is like Dish, I probably will get the same guide info on my HR20 as I will on the nonDVR receiver when my install arrives.
> 
> And no, it's not obvious many people think it's worth it. You're confusing 'whether many people think it's worth it' with 'whether most people think they have other option than to pay the fee'. Big difference. The only other choice for many is not to have TV at all, and for most, not to have the programming they want. Trust me,... if people had a REAL choice between paying 6 extra dollars per month and not have to give up programming to exercise that choice, there'd only be you and a few others who would pay that fee.
> 
> ...


----------

