# D* Announces New Rates Starting 2/9/2010



## riprecked

New Rates for DIRECTV® Service: New prices take effect February 9, 2010, and will appear on billing statements issued after that date. See the detailed information below as it relates to your service.

If your current DIRECTV base package price is part of a national promotional 12-month or “Lock in Your Price for 12 Months” offer, you will continue to receive this price for the remainder of your offer period. As of next month’s bill, your promotional price will be shown on your statement as the new price along with a credit. Note: if you change your current base package, you may no longer be eligible for the credit.

Base Packages: Base packages include local channels, where available. If DIRECTV does not offer local channels in your area, most programming packages are $3/ mo. less than the listed prices. Visit directv.com/locals to check availability by ZIP code. Packages and their new prices: CHOICE $58.99/mo.; CHOICE XTRA $63.99/ mo.; Jadeworld $39.99/mo.; LO MÁXIMO $114.99/mo.; OPTIMO MÁS $47.99/mo.; PREFERRED CHOICE $38.99/mo.; PREMIER $114.99/mo.; and TOTAL CHOICE® MOBILE $63.99/mo.

The following legacy base packages* and their new prices: BASIC $15.99/mo.; BÁSICO $35.99/mo.; DIRECTV LIMITED $27.99/mo.; FAMILIAR $51.99/mo.; FAMILIAR ULTRA $60.99/mo.; OPCIÓN ESPECIAL® $35.99/mo.; OPCIÓN EXTRATM $43.99/mo.; OPCIÓN EXTRA ESPECIAL® $52.99/mo.; OPCIÓN PREMIER® $108.99/mo.; OPCIÓN ULTRA ESPECIAL® $54.99/mo.; OPTIMO MÁS PLUS DVR $53.99/mo.; PLUS DIRECTV $36.99/mo.; PLUS DVR $69.99/mo.; PLUS HD DVR $79.99/mo.; SELECT CHOICE® $41.99/mo.; TOTAL CHOICE® $57.49/mo.; TOTAL CHOICE® LIMITED $48.99/mo.; and TOTAL CHOICE® PLUS $61.49/mo. SELECT will increase $3.00/mo.

Other services and their new prices: DIRECTV® DVR Service fee $7.00/mo.; RussianDirect II $39.99/mo.

*These packages are no longer available for sale. Customers who currently subscribe to these packages may maintain them as long as their account is in “good standing”, as determined by DIRECTV in its sole discretion. For complete pricing and packaging information, visit directv.com/packages. Programming, pricing, terms and conditions subject to change at any time. Hardware and programming available separately. Pricing is residential. Taxes not included. Receipt of DIRECTV programming is subject to the terms of the DIRECTV Customer Agreement; a copy is provided at directv.com/legal and in your bill or in the first month notification. ©2009 DIRECTV, Inc. DIRECTV and the Cyclone Design logo, CHOICE, CHOICE XTRA, TOTAL CHOICE, PREMIER, FAMILIAR, FAMILIAR ULTRA, OPTIMO MÁS, MÁS ULTRA, LO MÁXIMO, PREFERRED CHOICE and all other DIRECTV International service names are trademarks of DIRECTV, Inc. All other trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners. 11/09 30896-0


----------



## RobertE

Link to source?


----------



## tsduke

*New Rates for DIRECTV
® Service: New prices take effect February 9, 2010, and will appear on billing statements issued after that date. See the detailed information​*
*below as it relates to your service.*​​If your current DIRECTV base package price is part of a national promotional 12-month or "Lock in Your Price for 12 Months" offer, you will continue to receive this price
for the remainder of your offer period. As of next month's bill, your promotional price will be shown on your statement as the new price along with a credit. Note: if you
change your current base package, you may no longer be eligible for the credit.
Base Packages: Base packages include local channels, where available. If DIRECTV does not offer local channels in your area, most programming packages are $3/
mo. less than the listed prices. Visit directv.com/locals to check availability by ZIP code. Packages and their new prices: CHOICE​
​
™ $58.99/mo.; CHOICE XTRA™ $63.99/
mo.; Jadeworld $39.99/mo.; LO MÁXIMO​​
™ $114.99/mo.; OPTIMO MÁS™ $47.99/mo.; PREFERRED CHOICE™ $38.99/mo.; PREMIER™ $114.99/mo.; and TOTAL CHOICE®
​​MOBILE​
​
™ $63.99/mo.
The following legacy base packages* and their new prices: BASIC $15.99/mo.; BÁSICO​​
™ $35.99/mo.; DIRECTV LIMITED $27.99/mo.; FAMILIAR™ $51.99/mo.; FAMILIAR
ULTRA​​
™ $60.99/mo.; OPCIÓN ESPECIAL® $35.99/mo.; OPCIÓN EXTRA™ $43.99/mo.; OPCIÓN EXTRA ESPECIAL® $52.99/mo.; OPCIÓN PREMIER® $108.99/mo.; OPCIÓN
ULTRA ESPECIAL​​
® $54.99/mo.; OPTIMO MÁS PLUS DVR $53.99/mo.; PLUS DIRECTV $36.99/mo.; PLUS DVR™ $69.99/mo.; PLUS HD DVR™ $79.99/mo.; SELECT CHOICE®
​​$41.99/mo.; TOTAL CHOICE​
​
® $57.49/mo.; TOTAL CHOICE® LIMITED $48.99/mo.; and TOTAL CHOICE® PLUS $61.49/mo. SELECT will increase $3.00/mo.
Other services and their new prices: DIRECTV​​
® DVR Service fee $7.00/mo.; RussianDirect™ II $39.99/mo.
​​*These packages are no longer available for sale. Customers who currently subscribe to these packages may maintain them as long as their account is in "good standing", as determined by
DIRECTV in its sole discretion. For complete pricing and packaging information, visit directv.com/packages. Programming, pricing, terms and conditions subject to change at any time. Hardware
and programming available separately. Pricing is residential. Taxes not included. Receipt of DIRECTV programming is subject to the terms of the DIRECTV Customer Agreement; a copy is provided
at directv.com/legal and in your bill or in the first month notification. ©2009 DIRECTV, Inc. DIRECTV and the Cyclone Design logo, CHOICE, CHOICE XTRA, TOTAL CHOICE, PREMIER, FAMILIAR,​
FAMILIAR ULTRA, OPTIMO MÁS, MÁS ULTRA, LO MÁXIMO, PREFERRED CHOICE and all other DIRECTV International service names are trademarks of DIRECTV, Inc. All other trademarks and
service marks are the property of their respective owners. 11/09 30896-0
​


----------



## rjknyy

It was from a DirecTV email.


----------



## riprecked

RobertE said:


> Link to source?


http://www.directv.com/email/30896-...df?CMP=EMC-MQ-CS&ATT=120-FV-V1-091227final&m=


----------



## tsduke

I'm not real sure how to determine what my actuall rate increase is. I have the Choice Xtra + HD DVR for $75.99 now, but they don't list it specifically. 

Looks like Choice Xtra is jumping by $3/month. DVR service goes to $7, but how does that affect my package?


----------



## RAD

So the Plus DVR and Plus HD DVR packages are being removed from available options to change to along with the price increase, bummer.

Guess the $10/month HD access fee at least isn't going up, would be nice if they just eliminated it.


----------



## Blurayfan

tsduke said:


> I'm not real sure how to determine what my actuall rate increase is. I have the Choice Xtra + HD DVR for $75.99 now, but they don't list it specifically.
> 
> Looks like Choice Xtra is jumping by $3/month. DVR service goes to $7, but how does that affect my package?





tsduke said:


> ® $54.99/mo.; OPTIMO MÁS PLUS DVR $53.99/mo.; PLUS DIRECTV $36.99/mo.; PLUS DVR™ $69.99/mo.; *PLUS HD DVR™ $79.99/mo.*; SELECT CHOICE®


Your package goes up $4.00


----------



## tsduke

Could be, but those are legacy packages aren't they?


----------



## Blurayfan

tsduke said:


> Could be, but those are legacy packages aren't they?


When the price increase goes into effect yes. DirecTV will nolonger offer that package, but existing subscribers can keep it.


----------



## tsduke

Kind of a piss poor attempt by Directv to explain price increases.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I know that there will be other correspondence from DIRECTV on this subject in the coming weeks.


----------



## mreposter

Hmm, thought the price increases usually came in March. Did they scoot them up a month this year?


----------



## Grafixguy

What happened to looking out for the subscriber by holding the line on programming costs. Does this mean if we had Versus, the increase would have been $0.05 more?


----------



## lwilli201

I was expecting a price increase but an increase in the DVR fee is a little puzzling.


----------



## ahintz

Just got the email myself. Looks like my costs are going up $4/month (Plus HD DVR). 

Hopefully soon after the cost increase we'll see some more channels from the new sat, so at least the increased fee will feel like it is buying something more!


----------



## PCampbell

At what point dose the OTA start to look real good, for me its getting close.


----------



## Grentz

I sat down and spent some time organizing the info from the letter. All prices are per month. Packages without locals are $3 less than stated.

I also filled in the Current Prices of packages that I know.



*Package | New Price (Feb. 2010) | Current Price*
*Current Packages*

Premier | $114.99 | $109.99
Choice Xtra | $63.99 | $60.99
Choice | $58.99 | $55.99
Preferred Choice (Used w/International Pkgs) | $38.99 | $35.99
TC Mobile | $63.99 | $55.99
*Current International Packages*

Jadeworld | $39.99 | $36.99
Lo Maximo | $114.99 | $109.99
Optimo Mas | $47.99 | $
*Legacy Packages (Grandfathered)*

Basic | $15.99 | $12.99
Plus Directv | $36.99 | $
Plus DVR | $69.99 | $65.99
Plus HD DVR | $79.99 | $75.99
Select Choice | $41.99 | $
Total Choice Limited | $48.99 | $
Total Choice | $57.49 | $53.99
Total Choice Plus | $61.49 | $57.99
Select | +$3.00 | $
Directv Limited | $27.99 | $
*International Legacy Packages (Grandfathered)*

Basico | $35.99 | $32.99
Familiar | $51.99 | $
Familiar Ultra | $60.99 | $57.99
Opcion Especial | $35.99 | $
Opcion Extra | $43.99 | $
Opcion Extra Especial | $52.99 | $
Opcion Premier | $108.99 | $
Opcion Ultra Especial | $54.99 | $
Optimo Mas Plus DVR | $53.99 | $
*Extra Services*

DVR Service Fee | $7.00 | $6.00
RussianDirect II | $39.99 | $


Interesting they are increasing the DVR fee as well, have not seen them touch that for awhile.


----------



## Lord Vader

I have Total Choice Premier, or whatever the top-of-the-line package is called, with locals, ever since the 1990s when I became a subscriber. So it looks like my increase is $5/month. Sucks.


----------



## inkahauts

Grentz said:


> I sat down and spent some time organizing the info from the letter. All prices are per month. Packages without locals are $3 less than stated.
> 
> I also filled in the Current Prices of packages that I know.
> 
> 
> 
> *Package | New Price (Feb. 2010) | Current Price*
> *Current Packages*
> 
> Premier | $114.99 | $109.99
> Choice Xtra | $63.99 | $60.99
> Choice | $58.99 | $55.99
> Preferred Choice | $38.99 | $
> TC Mobile | $63.99 | $
> *Current International Packages*
> 
> Jadeworld | $39.99 | $36.99
> Lo Maximo | $114.99 | $
> Optimo Mas | $47.99 | $
> *Legacy Packages (Grandfathered)*
> 
> Basic | $15.99 | $
> Plus Directv | $36.99 | $
> Plus DVR | $69.99 | $65.99
> Plus HD DVR | $79.99 | $75.99
> Select Choice | $41.99 | $
> Total Choice Limited | $48.99 | $
> Total Choice | $57.49 | $
> Total Choice Plus | $61.49 | $57.99
> Select | +$3.00 | $
> Directv Limited | $27.99 | $
> *International Legacy Packages (Grandfathered)*
> 
> Basico | $35.99 | $
> Familiar | $51.99 | $
> Familiar Ultra | $60.99 | $
> Opcion Especial | $35.99 | $
> Opcion Extra | $43.99 | $
> Opcion Extra Especial | $52.99 | $
> Opcion Premier | $108.99 | $
> Opcion Ultra Especial | $54.99 | $
> Optimo Mas Plus DVR | $53.99 | $
> *Extra Services*
> 
> DVR Service Fee | $7.00 | $6.00
> RussianDirect II | $39.99 | $
> 
> 
> Interesting they are increasing the DVR fee as well, have not seen them touch that for awhile.


Where can I find out whats going to be included in the new preffered choice?


----------



## tcusta00

PCampbell said:


> At what point dose the OTA start to look real good, for me its getting close.


For me it's as close as standalone whole-home DVR/media server technology maturing enough to be acceptable for the entire family to use. Tick tock.


----------



## ddockery

I can't explain why, but I wanrt to stay w/ DirecTV, but their pricing is really making me rethink that logic. AT this point the only real hurdle is that I can't watch the stuff on my DVR if I switch away from them.


----------



## joshjr

I see nothing about the DNS feeds going up or premium channels increasing so thats good. I to am also glad to see that the HD access fee is not going up. For me it means I will have to pay $4 more for Plus HD DVR ($76.99) and $1 of that is from the increase for the DVR service, so I guess that means I am paying $3 more for channels increasing price and D* paying for D12?


----------



## lee78221

Grafixguy said:


> What happened to looking out for the subscriber by holding the line on programming costs. Does this mean if we had Versus, the increase would have been $0.05 more?


That's never going to happen. Look at the thread when DirecTV dropped Versus! I pay X I should be getting Y was the sentiment . Most people say they want the provider to "hold the line on programming costs", but get mad when they do and drop to go to someone else.


----------



## joshjr

Maybe the DVR fee increase is to get us more ready for the HD TiVo DVR coming.


----------



## BattleZone

Grafixguy said:


> What happened to looking out for the subscriber by holding the line on programming costs. Does this mean if we had Versus, the increase would have been $0.05 more?


DirecTV and all other providers have seen LARGE increases in programming costs from the networks. Those costs are of course going to be passed on to the subscribers who generate those costs.

One of the reasons you don't have Versus right now is because DirecTV is fighting against these huge increases, to reduce the amount of money they have to raise your rates.

You can't really complain about DirecTV playing hardball and then complain about rate increases. If you want to complain about DirecTV not having Versus, then you are essentially saying that DirecTV should be willing to pay more to keep it, or in other words, they should raise everyone's bill in order to keep it.

Regardless, all providers will have rate increases this year, like most years. Most of us realize that this is the case, and we also realize that the amount of programming available to all of us has similiarly increased over the years.

In the end, pay TV is an optional luxury, not a necessity. You either pay what it costs or you live with OTA.


----------



## Grentz

inkahauts said:


> Where can I find out whats going to be included in the new preffered choice?


It's not new actually, it is just the base package that goes with internationals.



ddockery said:


> I can't explain why, but I wanrt to stay w/ DirecTV, but their pricing is really making me rethink that logic. AT this point the only real hurdle is that I can't watch the stuff on my DVR if I switch away from them.


The stupid thing is, even though I hate rate increases as much as anyone else, Directv is STILL much cheaper than any other provider for the same service. I don't really understand when people will come and say they are going to switch (not saying you are) after these new rates come out when other services are still more expensive.


----------



## RAD

BattleZone said:


> DirecTV and all other providers have seen LARGE increases in programming costs from the networks. Those costs are of course going to be passed on to the subscribers who generate those costs.


If the Dish price increase rumor is true they're going to have a large marketing advantage by being able to say we held the line on programming cost's for 2010 while others raised their rates. Of course they'll not mention about the increases in their hardware charges but those costs usually aren't mentioned in ads anyway.


----------



## bidger

joshjr said:


> I see nothing about the DNS feeds going up or premium channels increasing so thats good. I to am also glad to see that the HD access fee is not going up.


Hopefully, those aren't things they forgot to include with the price increase notification.


----------



## joshjr

bidger said:


> Hopefully, those aren't things they forgot to include with the price increase notification.


They were all noted last year but everything went up last year. I dont think they had anything that didnt increase except for maybe their magazine.


----------



## bills976

Total Choice used to be $53.99. It was $47.99 back in 2007. That's a $10 price increase in 3 years, or a 21% increase in price over 3 years.

DVR fees are a joke in the first place - I'd like to know their justification in raising them 16% over last year's rate.


----------



## CJTE

Good Gosh!
Those prices are a damn joke.
$115 for premier? Which 2 years ago was $100 + $10 for HD Access and included the DVR service? So now we're paying $130 for premier service with HD and DVR, and 1 receiver!

And what about those of us with Plus HD DVR (like ME!)? That option isn't even listed!


----------



## Grentz

bills976 said:


> Total Choice used to be $53.99. It was $47.99 back in 2007. That's a $10 price increase in 3 years, or a 21% increase in price over 3 years.
> 
> DVR fees are a joke in the first place - I'd like to know their justification in raising them 16% over last year's rate.


Most of the increases come from the networks themselves, Cable, Dish, etc. all have increases as well. You don't even want to know what I paid 14yrs ago when I first signed up with DirecTV 

Heres the alternative (that most cable companies and dish do). No DVR fee, but $7-$16 PER DVR. So you end up paying much much more if you have a few receivers.

For example:
DirecTV: $7 + $5 for 2 HD-DVRs = $12/mo
My local Cable Co : $7.50x2 for 2 HD-DVRs = $15/mo


----------



## Doug Brott

Just merged two threads that were talking about the same thing .. so comments may look a little odd .. Carry on


----------



## joshjr

CJTE said:


> Good Gosh!
> Those prices are a damn joke.
> $115 for premier? Which 2 years ago was $100 + $10 for HD Access and included the DVR service? So now we're paying $130 for premier service with HD and DVR, and 1 receiver!
> 
> And what about those of us with Plus HD DVR (like ME!)? That option isn't even listed!


Its there. It says $79.99 a month if you have locals.


----------



## bills976

Grentz said:


> Most of the increases come from the networks themselves, Cable, Dish, etc. all have increases as well. You don't even want to know what I paid 14yrs ago when I first signed up with DirecTV
> 
> Heres the alternative (that most cable companies and dish do). No DVR fee, but $10-$16 PER DVR. So you end up paying much much more if you have a few receivers.


That doesn't justify the ridiculousness of the fee. Those DVRs are gateways to additional products and services they can sell like PPV on demand, Sunday Ticket Shortcuts, and promos that they can stick in your Now Playing list. If anything, excluding the fee, they probably make MORE money off of you if you have a DVR.

Dammit, why do I like sports? If I didn't, OTA + Netflix would work so well.


----------



## ffemtreed

what a great time in our economy to raise prices! I know its only 5 bucks more, now but I been saying that for 3 years now, I can't justify paying these price increases. Soon they are going to be charging me more for MRV as well.... nickle and dime... nickle and dime..... 

Bye Bye Premier for me, without VS, I am probably going to drop down to the base package and ride out my contract. I wish the feds would force DTV to let people out of their contract when they raise the prices. It seems very one sided to me.


----------



## CJTE

joshjr said:


> Its there. It says $79.99 a month if you have locals.


Yeeaaa. Its under legacy packages. What a bloody joke.
I like a lot of things about DirecTV but at these prices if Cox decides to give me Channels 2-69 in SD for $30/month and reduce my internet bill by $10-$20, I'll be outta here in a heart beat. Much easier to pay $100/3 (roommates) for internet and TV than $80/3 for internet and $114/3 for TV...

I guess DirecTV can't really be blamed, because all the providers have increases, I just didn't expect the increases to jump this high, this fast, and being unemployed hasn't equipped me to deal with it.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan

I can't go anywhere..... 

NFLST


----------



## Sackchamp56

does 4 bucks a month really break anybody's budget? If so, it would be wise to not subscribe to a tv service in the first place. It sucks, but I'm over it.


----------



## lee78221

For me I never cared about price. It's what can I do with the content and what can't I. 

DirecTV doesn't let me do anything with the content on my DVR, but Thanks to the FCC and Ceton I'll pretty much get to do anything with it(Like using it when making my HTPC with 3 Xboxs). Which is why I'm going back to TWC at the start of 2010 and paying the ETF with DirecTV.


----------



## tsduke

Sackchamp56 said:


> does 4 bucks a month really break anybody's budget? If so, it would be wise to not subscribe to a tv service in the first place. It sucks, but I'm over it.


After how many $4 price increases do you stop asking this question?


----------



## Sackchamp56

Its going to take quite a few i'm afraid.


----------



## Grentz

CJTE said:


> Yeeaaa. Its under legacy packages. What a bloody joke.
> I like a lot of things about DirecTV but at these prices if Cox decides to give me Channels 2-69 in SD for $30/month and reduce my internet bill by $10-$20, I'll be outta here in a heart beat. Much easier to pay $100/3 (roommates) for internet and TV than $80/3 for internet and $114/3 for TV...
> 
> I guess DirecTV can't really be blamed, because all the providers have increases, I just didn't expect the increases to jump this high, this fast, and being unemployed hasn't equipped me to deal with it.


Again, I don't really understand the logic. You are paying more for DirecTV because you are getting so much more. Get the equivalent from your cable co and it will be more expensive (and probably not even equivalent).

It is easier for me to pay for Choice, or Family, or no-HD, or how about just OTA w/a Tivo. But I have decided that I want more. How much you want is up to you 

I have had DirecTV for 14yrs, and they have always been cheaper for the equivalent in comparison to cable and usually right around Dish's prices (right now Directv is cheaper than Dish for me). They didn't stay in this position by raising prices any more than their competitors have.


----------



## tsduke

Sackchamp56 said:


> Its going to take quite a few i'm afraid.


Perfect example of why and how programmers keep managing to get more $$ from providers.


----------



## bills976

What kills me is that the vast majority of what I watch isn't even covered by the base package I am forced to subscribe to. I really only watch the following channels:

- The 4 major networks
- Sunday Ticket
- Center Ice
- USA
- ESPN and ESPN2
- Versus
- YES network

And DirecTV doesn't even get Versus anymore. Paying $70/month for this, outside of the sports packages, is killing me from a psychological standpoint. I can easily afford it, but do I want to?


----------



## Sackchamp56

tsduke said:


> Perfect example of why and how programmers keep managing to get more $$ from providers.


The cool thing is you can choose not to pay it if you feel that the product does not justify the price. I dont think they are that close to a mass cancellation yet.


----------



## Sackchamp56

bills976 said:
 

> What kills me is that the vast majority of what I watch isn't even covered by the base package I am forced to subscribe to. I really only watch the following channels:
> 
> - The 4 major networks
> - Sunday Ticket
> - Center Ice
> - USA
> - ESPN and ESPN2
> - Versus
> - YES network
> 
> And DirecTV doesn't even get Versus anymore. Paying $70/month for this, outside of the sports packages, is killing me from a psychological standpoint. I can easily afford it, but do I want to?


Yeah, thats the thing you have to decide. I still feel like i'm getting my money's worth at this point. More so if they continue to add more HD in the near future.


----------



## joshjr

Sackchamp56 said:


> does 4 bucks a month really break anybody's budget? If so, it would be wise to not subscribe to a tv service in the first place. It sucks, but I'm over it.


I tend to agree. Its $4 a month. If you cant send another $4 a month then you may have a more expensive package then you need or maybe you should consider OTA. I know that I will not be going anywhere. I to want Sunday Ticket and even if I didnt have it am very happy with D* thus far. The cable here sucks beyond belief and E* is missing to many sports channels I want to consider it.


----------



## tsduke

Sackchamp56 said:


> The cool thing is you can choose not to pay it if you feel that the product does not justify the price. I dont think they are that close to a mass cancellation yet.


I should add that my argument isn't against Directv, but against the whole programmer-providers cost structure.


----------



## joshjr

Sackchamp56 said:


> Yeah, thats the thing you have to decide. I still feel like i'm getting my money's worth at this point. More so if they continue to add more HD in the near future.


I agree with that as well. If we get more HD channels this year then that will kind of make up for it for me at least. I do hope VS comes back but if not Im not going anywhere. I still am very happy with what I have. I looked yesterday yo see if I would be happy if I went down a package and no way no how will I do it. Plus HD DVR has what I want for the most part and to me is a much better value them the Premier Package.


----------



## dodge boy

tsduke said:


> After how many $4 price increases do you stop asking this question?


I quit smoking 5 years ago, at the time smokes were almost 4 bucks a pack, I smoked 3 packs a day, I save way more than that a month.

I know apples to oranges and stuff but maybe there is something minor in life, like 1 can of pop/beer a day less or something.


----------



## dodge boy

bills976 said:


> What kills me is that the vast majority of what I watch isn't even covered by the base package I am forced to subscribe to. I really only watch the following channels:
> 
> - The 4 major networks
> - Sunday Ticket
> - Center Ice
> - USA
> - ESPN and ESPN2
> - Versus
> - YES network
> 
> And DirecTV doesn't even get Versus anymore. Paying $70/month for this, outside of the sports packages, is killing me from a psychological standpoint. I can easily afford it, but do I want to?


I mostly watch my locals, and with an AM21 even. It's just nice to have all the other garbage when people stop over.


----------



## joshjr

tsduke said:


> I should add that my argument isn't against Directv, but against the whole programmer-providers cost structure.


Its going to go up. Its all about the options you have. If you can get a better offer for channels you can live with then make the jump. If not then get used to the new prices. No one wants to pay more but if you are happy with what you are paying for them you need to say okay I really want what I have or I need to make some adjustments. You seem to think people should all side with you. Its not going to be the same for everyone. We all have different tv needs. For me D* is the very best solution to provide me with what I want to see. For that alone I dont care of it would of went up $10 a month I would pay it. I have what I want. Its the same with the Sunday Ticket thread. If you dont want to pay it then dont but if you want it then be prepared to shell out the money. I for one love Sunday Ticket and dont care if next year its raised another $50 I will still sub to it again.


----------



## Davenlr

Im all for keeping prices the same myself, as I didnt get a raise this year, and worked harder than I ever have, but...
DirecTv is launching a new satellite, and will need cash to pay providers for those extra channels they will be adding.
And dont forget the huge expense they just went through to switch out equipement countrywide, to provide digital HD locals.

And lets not forget the current and future software upgrades to our equipment they roll out quarterly. 

I think, after all is said and done in February, the $3-$5 a month is worth it to me. For those who believe its not worth it, there are alternative packages, alternative providers, or free providers. I drive a 1997 Geo Tracker, because I like it, it runs good, and lets me use those $$$ car payments for a bad a** new vehicle for other things, like DirecTv and groceries.

My opinion only.


----------



## fredandbetty

Hmmm, looks like they are trying to force all of us ' Legacy Pkg' subs to the new ones, for me it would be an increase of $2.50 IF I switch....


----------



## Grentz

fredandbetty said:


> Hmmm, looks like they are trying to force all of us ' Legacy Pkg' subs to the new ones, for me it would be an increase of $2.50 IF I switch....


Still $2.50 for no gain


----------



## tsduke

Davenlr said:


> And lets not forget the current and future software upgrades to our equipment they roll out quarterly.


Since you went there...by upgrade, do you mean the one that is making my viewing less enjoying because of the very frequent audio dropouts?


----------



## joshjr

Davenlr said:


> Im all for keeping prices the same myself, as I didnt get a raise this year, and worked harder than I ever have, but...
> DirecTv is launching a new satellite, and will need cash to pay providers for those extra channels they will be adding.
> And dont forget the huge expense they just went through to switch out equipement countrywide, to provide digital HD locals.
> 
> And lets not forget the current and future software upgrades to our equipment they roll out quarterly.
> 
> I think, after all is said and done in February, the $3-$5 a month is worth it to me. For those who believe its not worth it, there are alternative packages, alternative providers, or free providers. I drive a 1997 Geo Tracker, because I like it, it runs good, and lets me use those $$$ car payments for a bad a** new vehicle for other things, like DirecTv and groceries.
> 
> My opinion only.


I am hoping that this next year will see me get some locals and be able to keep DNS feeds and see more HD channels added as well as I am looking forward to seeing what the TiVo HD DVR will be able to do. For that alone I am okay with the $4 increase. I am happier this year then last year when they raised almost everything including DVR and DNS fees.


----------



## dodge boy

Davenlr said:


> Im all for keeping prices the same myself, as I didnt get a raise this year, and worked harder than I ever have, but...
> DirecTv is launching a new satellite, and will need cash to pay providers for those extra channels they will be adding.
> And dont forget the huge expense they just went through to switch out equipement countrywide, to provide digital HD locals.
> 
> And lets not forget the current and future software upgrades to our equipment they roll out quarterly.
> 
> I think, after all is said and done in February, the $3-$5 a month is worth it to me. For those who believe its not worth it, there are alternative packages, alternative providers, or free providers. I drive a 1997 Geo Tracker, because I like it, it runs good, and lets me use those $$$ car payments for a bad a** new vehicle for other things, like DirecTv and groceries.
> 
> My opinion only.


See I think the providers DirecTv, Dish, and the cable companies have it all wrong. They have all the power when negotiating carriages. What if the heads of these companies sat down with HBO, Cinnemax, Disney, which includes ESPN, etc. and said, "So how much are you paying us top carry your networks this year? Try and sell those 30 second time slots with zero viewers. Have a nice day." and leave all at once.


----------



## joshjr

tsduke said:


> Since you went there...by upgrade, do you mean the one that is making my viewing less enjoying because of the very frequent audio dropouts?


One of them would be the double play feature or that the R22 can now be a HD DVR. Things like that are nice to see coming available to us.


----------



## fredandbetty

Grentz said:


> Still $2.50 for no gain


Exactly, unless we are not being given the 'big picture', maybe additional channels ( hoping...), but right now I still do not plan on doing anything...yet!


----------



## joshjr

dodge boy said:


> See I think the providers DirecTv, Dish, and the cable companies have it all wrong. They have all the power when negotiating carriages. What if the heads of these companies sat down with HBO, Cinnemax, Disney, which includes ESPN, etc. and said, "So how much are you paying us top carry your networks this year? Try and sell those 30 second time slots with zero viewers. Have a nice day." and leave all at once.


That probably would work if you could get all providers at the same exact time to do that. Since they wont due to contracts and customers will just jump to someone else I doubt we will see this happen.


----------



## RAD

OK, I'm retired now, but when I was employeed I expected to get a salary increase every year. I'd be willing to bet that the employees of all the various content providers and DirecTV staff also would like to see an anual salary increase (along with everyone here that's upset with the price increase). But someone has to pay for those increases, along with all the other expenses that go along with running a company, such as purchasing and launching a multi million dollar satellite. So for me this round is comes out to $72 more for the year, something that I'm willing to pay.


----------



## Davenlr

dodge boy said:


> See I think the providers DirecTv, Dish, and the cable companies have it all wrong. They have all the power when negotiating carriages. What if the heads of these companies sat down with HBO, Cinnemax, Disney, which includes ESPN, etc. and said, "So how much are you paying us top carry your networks this year? Try and sell those 30 second time slots with zero viewers. Have a nice day." and leave all at once.


I think thats a great idea, but somehow, I have to believe there have been lobbyists in Washington that got laws passed to prevent that. If not, all the gas companies would get together to decide how much to charge us for gas this week.

In any event, Ill bet the big 4 networks would love to see all the cable and sat companies drop all their competition.


----------



## dodge boy

joshjr said:


> That probably would work if you could get all providers at the same exact time to do that. Since they wont due to contracts and customers will just jump to someone else I doubt we will see this happen.


last 5 words of the post were, "And all leave at once.". :lol:


----------



## Titon

You know what the really really sad thing is? There isn't crap on tv to even consider keeping directv or any provider to begin with.

I remember the old big dish days when you could choose what you wanted on your package. Now you get 6-8 channels to watch and the rest is garbage.


----------



## dodge boy

Davenlr said:


> I think thats a great idea, but somehow, I have to believe there have been lobbyists in Washington that got laws passed to prevent that. If not, all the gas companies would get together to decide how much to charge us for gas this week.


That would be collusion and/or price fixing and is supposed to already be illegal, but has nothing to do with saying, "What do you want to pay me for my gasoline?". (substitute viewers for gasoline).


----------



## dodge boy

Titon said:


> I remember the old big dish days when you could choose what you wanted on your package. Now you get 6-8 channels to watch and the rest is garbage.


I got into D* when my actuator went out, and we had 70 MPH winds that spun the 10 foot dish around and snapped the pole. (Sucked because I just bought a 4D sidecar 2 weeks before that).


----------



## Davenlr

dodge boy said:


> I got into D* when my actuator went out, and we had 70 MPH winds that spun the 10 foot dish around and snapped the pole. (Sucked because I just bought a 4D sidecar 2 weeks before that).


Hate to admit this, but I got my first dish before HBO scrambled, and everything was free.


----------



## tealcomp

The problem for me is, yes we get more channels, but how many are actually worth watching ? Chiller which I enjoy is still crappy SD and about one of the worst quality channels D* has. For myself, I am just about ready to say adios. I look at what i record on my DVR and lately there has been very little that I cannot get from alternate (legal means). If they put something of value on it would be one thing, but frankly of late it's been slim pickens. I vote with my pocketbook, and while I can easily afford the service, I am starting to ask do I "want" to.? Of the 200+ channels I have access to, I watch about 10 of them with any repedity. For my money Netflix is a much better and cheaper alternative.

-Dan



Davenlr said:


> Im all for keeping prices the same myself, as I didnt get a raise this year, and worked harder than I ever have, but...
> DirecTv is launching a new satellite, and will need cash to pay providers for those extra channels they will be adding.
> And dont forget the huge expense they just went through to switch out equipement countrywide, to provide digital HD locals.
> 
> And lets not forget the current and future software upgrades to our equipment they roll out quarterly.
> 
> I think, after all is said and done in February, the $3-$5 a month is worth it to me. For those who believe its not worth it, there are alternative packages, alternative providers, or free providers. I drive a 1997 Geo Tracker, because I like it, it runs good, and lets me use those $$$ car payments for a bad a** new vehicle for other things, like DirecTv and groceries.
> 
> My opinion only.


----------



## tealcomp

Oh and another thing while I am on my soapbox; are they out of their minds charging $5 and $6 for a PPV event; that would explain why I NEVER use that service, it is just plain silly. But they don't seem to get the point.
So again, I may be in the minority, but I too have a voice 

-Dan



tealcomp said:


> The problem for me is, yes we get more channels, but how many are actually worth watching ? Chiller which I enjoy is still crappy SD and about one of the worst quality channels D* has. For myself, I am just about ready to say adios. I look at what i record on my DVR and lately there has been very little that I cannot get from alternate (legal means). If they put something of value on it would be one thing, but frankly of late it's been slim pickens. I vote with my pocketbook, and while I can easily afford the service, I am starting to ask do I "want" to.? Of the 200+ channels I have access to, I watch about 10 of them with any repedity. For my money Netflix is a much better and cheaper alternative.
> 
> -Dan


----------



## gphvid

First it was "Congratulations for being a DirecTV customer for 15 years. Here's 5 off per month for 15 months as a reward." And then followed by a $5 dollar package increase and a $1 DVR service fee. They are getting $1 more out of me in reality.

Gee, thanks for the gift...

We are definitely approaching (if not already there) maximum price point here.

And Fox is upset that TW is dropping them Jan 1st due to Fox demanding more $$$? Get a clue, guys...


----------



## kevinwmsn

The DVR fee probably went up because they added the double play feature and another popular upcoming feature. I don't think the DVR fee went because of Tivo, there still may be a separate Tivo Tax for those that want a Tivo DVR.


----------



## Jeremy W

If the increase in the DVR fee means that they decided a separate MRV fee is a bad idea, then I can live with it. If they're increasing the DVR fee *and* are still going to have an MRV fee, then this is starting to get out of control.


----------



## Jeremy W

kevinwmsn said:


> The DVR fee probably went up because they added the double play feature


Can you explain why you'd say this? DoublePlay is a simple feature addition, it doesn't incur any sort of additional recurring costs on DirecTV's part. It's like excusing the rate increase because of QuickTune.


----------



## JLucPicard

bills976 said:


> DVR fees are a joke in the first place - I'd like to know their justification in raising them 16% over last year's rate.


Does it make it any more palatable to think of it as a 16% increase over the price they charged, I don't know, maybe 10 years ago? The DVR fee has been $5,99/$6.00 for many years now. And it's still charged just once per account and not per DVR.


----------



## joshjr

gphvid said:


> First it was "Congratulations for being a DirecTV customer for 15 years. Here's 5 off per month for 15 months as a reward." And then followed by a $5 dollar package increase and a $1 DVR service fee. They are getting $1 more out of me in reality.
> 
> Gee, thanks for the gift...
> 
> We are definitely approaching (if not already there) maximum price point here.
> 
> And Fox is upset that TW is dropping them Jan 1st due to Fox demanding more $$$? Get a clue, guys...


Think about that though. The commercials I have seen tell all the sports people will miss. There will be a pouring of crying subs. TW would be insane not to come to terms with FOX. Not saying they should pay what FOX is asking for but that would be suicide not to carry it. Some would go with OTA, some would do nothing but I bet some would change providers for sure. I could not be without FOX. I would have to do something myself.


----------



## TBlazer07

Sackchamp56 said:


> does 4 bucks a month really break anybody's budget? If so, it would be wise to not subscribe to a tv service in the first place. It sucks, but I'm over it.


That's been the rallying cry for the last ?? years and ?? dollars of increases ...... but it all adds up. And for some people it just might push them over the "value" limit. At what point is it not worth $115/year but worth going OTA and using "other sources" for programming on the other channels.


----------



## Doug Brott

Sadly, $4 doesn't even buy 2 gallons of gas .. The dollar just isn't what it used to be .. sigh.


----------



## joshjr

JLucPicard said:


> Does it make it any more palatable to think of it as a 16% increase over the price they charged, I don't know, maybe 10 years ago? The DVR fee has been $5,99/$6.00 for many years now. And it's still charged just once per account and not per DVR.


Well think about it this way, at least they are changing it to $1 a month more and not $5-6 per DVR. When they do that then there will be alot more mad about it. I am much happier with the $1 increase.


----------



## The Merg

Great... Another $4.50 increase from my current rate... Considering the services that I am receiving haven't changed for a while, it's a bummer that my rates keep going up...

- Merg


----------



## Jtaylor1

Grentz said:


> I sat down and spent some time organizing the info from the letter. All prices are per month. Packages without locals are $3 less than stated.
> 
> I also filled in the Current Prices of packages that I know.
> 
> 
> 
> *Package | New Price (Feb. 2010) | Current Price*
> *Current Packages*
> 
> Premier | $114.99 | $109.99
> Choice Xtra | $63.99 | $60.99
> Choice | $58.99 | $55.99
> Preferred Choice (Used w/International Pkgs) | $38.99 | $35.99
> TC Mobile | $63.99 | $
> *Current International Packages*
> 
> Jadeworld | $39.99 | $36.99
> Lo Maximo | $114.99 | $109.99
> Optimo Mas | $47.99 | $
> *Legacy Packages (Grandfathered)*
> 
> Basic | $15.99 | $12.99
> Plus Directv | $36.99 | $
> Plus DVR | $69.99 | $65.99
> Plus HD DVR | $79.99 | $75.99
> Select Choice | $41.99 | $
> Total Choice Limited | $48.99 | $
> Total Choice | $57.49 | $
> Total Choice Plus | $61.49 | $57.99
> Select | +$3.00 | $
> Directv Limited | $27.99 | $
> *International Legacy Packages (Grandfathered)*
> 
> Basico | $35.99 | $32.99
> Familiar | $51.99 | $
> Familiar Ultra | $60.99 | $57.99
> Opcion Especial | $35.99 | $
> Opcion Extra | $43.99 | $
> Opcion Extra Especial | $52.99 | $
> Opcion Premier | $108.99 | $
> Opcion Ultra Especial | $54.99 | $
> Optimo Mas Plus DVR | $53.99 | $
> *Extra Services*
> 
> DVR Service Fee | $7.00 | $6.00
> RussianDirect II | $39.99 | $
> 
> 
> Interesting they are increasing the DVR fee as well, have not seen them touch that for awhile.


Looks like a $5 more for Premier.

What about leased receivers? Are they going to increase that too?

I can watch my shows online, instead of watching them on TV.


----------



## Movieman

I mainly watch movies and still find Directv to better for my viewing experience than Comcast or Dishnet. I still have more options with my DVR box than I would with any of the other carriers. I cant get upset with Directv for a rate increase. Its a business and they need to not only make money but to pay people for their work and also recover costs of R&D such as sending up a new bird to give me the HD I have been requesting. You cant complain about a rate increase when we are constantly yelling about more content and more HD. Sure they removed Versus but there is always a new channel being added. 

And the reason they dont just tell Fox or HBO to go to hell is because a lot of people are willing to leave a service provider for the network/channel they want to see. Thats why people leave other carriers and come to Directv. They are the biggest for being smart. We all have to decide about what we are willing to pay and its not just during rate hikes. I constantly look at the rates of what I have and other carriers and keep track of the channels I watch to make sure that regardless of my content provider Im getting the best overall deal. Directv continues to give me more for less. Now if Netflix were to get better online content I would be the first that can live with OTA and netflix. Or if/when Directv changes their PPV to be like Netflix the first thing I will drop is all my premiums. We each have to decide if its worth it to us. Directv cant be blamed for a running their business. IMHO


----------



## Movieman

SledgeHammer; said:


> If there was a decent alternative. I would seriously dump DirecTV.


This i why they continue to raise rates. But at least there is alternatives. For some Comcast and Dish or even U-verse/FIOS is better even at the additional cost. 

But I have to say you made extremely valid posts. Especially with this economy I do know people that need that extra $4. I guess a few of you are going to be doing some thinking once the Holidays are done.


----------



## dubber deux

Titon said:


> You know what the really really sad thing is? There isn't crap on tv to even consider keeping directv or any provider to begin with.
> 
> I remember the old big dish days when you could choose what you wanted on your package. Now you get 6-8 channels to watch and the rest is garbage.


*You are seriously onto something with your first paragraph!*

After looking at much of what I get with Choice Xtra I would only consider 9 channels, not including locals ( I think most local network content is absolute crap! EXCEPT PBS), to have worthwhile content on them. IMHO they are NGC, Discovery, Biography, History, Discovery ID, Dis Health, LinkTV, Military Channel, and BBC America.

Here's the big catch though......

Even WITH those channels I would guess that at least 50% of the program time is taken up with commercials, which seems to be a absolute rip off.

I'm not venting solely at D* but all the industry elements...it seems to be an absolute GREEDFEST for them.

While I understand that D* is seeing increased program or channel carry costs this is HARDLY the time to stick it to the subscriber to the degree they are. This is a big mistake, and it will cost them subs in the future.

As I remember they stopped carrying Versus (fine with me TV sports don't interest me much at all) yet my bill didn't go down one red cent and yet I don't see a comparable channel substituted for it YET! Tell us D* why are subs still paying for this channel when they don't get it anymore????!

When my contract ends I'll be going with basic cable or OTA unless D* comes up with more afforable offerings that offer value.
The internet is much more interesting to me anyhow. I think the 20 bucks /mo for dry loop DSL is a far better value.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Movieman said:


> This i why they continue to raise rates. But at least there is alternatives. For some Comcast and Dish or even U-verse/FIOS is better even at the additional cost.
> 
> But I have to say you made extremely valid posts. Especially with this economy I do know people that need that extra $4. I guess a few of you are going to be doing some thinking once the Holidays are done.


The only alternatives in my area are either Cox or Dish. No FIOS. Cox (and most cable companies) are an even bigger ripoff then DirecTV since 1 - 99 is still analog. My parents have Comcast and the HD DVR box is pretty bad. They have like 30GB or something. They can't even go on a 2 week vacation with running out of space.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Movieman said:


> And the reason they dont just tell Fox or HBO to go to hell is because a lot of people are willing to leave a service provider for the network/channel they want to see. Thats why people leave other carriers and come to Directv. They are the biggest for being smart. We all have to decide about what we are willing to pay and its not just during rate hikes. I constantly look at the rates of what I have and other carriers and keep track of the channels I watch to make sure that regardless of my content provider Im getting the best overall deal. Directv continues to give me more for less. Now if Netflix were to get better online content I would be the first that can live with OTA and netflix. Or if/when Directv changes their PPV to be like Netflix the first thing I will drop is all my premiums. We each have to decide if its worth it to us. Directv cant be blamed for a running their business. IMHO


I would *NEVER* order the movie channels because there is simply nothing on them. I've had the weekend free previews, I've had the free for 3 months thing, and I can tell you... the fact that I had 20+ movie channels for 3 months and MAYBE watched 2 or 3 movies says it all.

Don't care about the sports packages, etc. Just care about quality programming.


----------



## Movieman

SledgeHammer said:


> I would *NEVER* order the movie channels because there is simply nothing on them. I've had the weekend free previews, I've had the free for 3 months thing, and I can tell you... the fact that I had 20+ movie channels for 3 months and MAYBE watched 2 or 3 movies says it all.
> 
> Don't care about the sports packages, etc. Just care about quality programming.


I only watch the sports that I get locally for free. Im not a NFLST type of person cause the games I want to watch are pretty much always locally. For me the movie channels are different. Thats pretty much all I watch and then my locals (off the DVR with no commercials). Once D12 goes live I hope to be getting more of these channels in HD. But its not for everyone. Even though its only $4 now I can see how if you have had it a long time feels more like $10 with all the increases. I know when I had Comcast I paid way more and had like 20 HD channels.  My brother has Dish (is not ready to sign a commitment) and im always checking out his service and still Im better off price/programming than him. He is happy about their RedZone package which is what kept him from going with Directv NFLST this year. If these new fees increase my programming or at least quality Im happy. I have to see what happens with my content after the increase to really do a comparison with other providers.


----------



## Smthkd

Directv might as well change their name to Comcast because thats what they are turning into with all these rate increases year after year!


----------



## SledgeHammer

Isn't "Total Choice Plus" = to DISH "CLASSIC SILVER 200"? Well, thats already $3 cheaper then what I am CURRENTLY paying... it'll be $6 cheaper after the price increase. Looks like if I add in DVR and locals, I'm looking at saving **$10** a month on DISH.

Not like anything on DirecTV is keeping me here... don't watch sports, so thats useless... the VOD service is a f'n joke. Everything on there thats "free" is mostly garbage or repeat episodes of TV shows. They've had maybe a few new movies for free since the service debuted. But its complete garbage now.


----------



## Tom Servo

D* has me over a barrel but what am I gonna do? Read books? Pshaw. 

I dunno why you guys think OTA is a comparable option. Sure, it's free but gosh ain't nothing on the networks I wanna watch, except for Fox's Sunday night animation shows.

Netflix might work but DSL here is too slow to stream and the cable (which I have now, thank god) has a 5 GB DAILY cap on downloads, (1 GB up cap). So that's out.

I don't mind the price increase so much because I know we should be getting more HD — if all goes according to plan — around that same time. But increasing the DVR fee is what bugs me. Mirror fees, DVR fees… all stupidly high and just 100% profit for them. And I don't care if cable fees are higher, it's stupid no matter WHO does it.

Between that and paying ungodly prices for "leased" receivers, and the outrageous fees demanded for HD PPV, I wonder how they get any new customers at all. Finally, if I were to drop one of my spare HD non-DVR receivers, I'd save $5/month, but if I ever wanted it back it'd be what… $100 "lease" fee to get a new one? Plus two more years commitment? That's insane.


----------



## beanpoppa

'added' the double play feature? I see the double play feature as just a situation of FINALLY restoring a feature that I had in my DTivo 6 years ago! And the upcoming MRV capability is FINALLY adding something that I've been enjoying in my hacked DTivo's for 4 or 5 years. Hardly worth paying extra for.

Honestly, I think the monthly DVR fee is silly. It doesn't cost them extra to provide me DVR service. And I paid extra upfront for the more capable hardware to get the DVR.

But the reality is they will charge what they see as a fair price- whether it's an honest $80/mo for my total service, or some $50 + nickle and dime extra fees to get to $80/mo. I will decide at which point it's better to go with OTA, bring my own DVR hardware, and use Netflix to make up the difference. Probably not there quite yet, but I still have about 12 mo left on my commitment. Although I will probably drop to a lower package in the interim because I find I watch less and less of the package channels.



kevinwmsn said:


> The DVR fee probably went up because they added the double play feature and another popular upcoming feature. I don't think the DVR fee went because of Tivo, there still may be a separate Tivo Tax for those that want a Tivo DVR.


----------



## codespy

TCP is going up $5.00....again. Just a few years back it was $90.99 and had $3.00 increases (to 96.99 to 99.99) and then jumps in increments of $5.00 (to 104.99 to 109.99 to now 114.99).

We'll see if we still get the grandfathered $0.00 DVR service or not, but at 10 IRD's, one IRD will get dropped to offset the increase...and future IRD's may follow, especially if cost for DVR service kicks in. My salary is half of what it was two years ago.

Too bad new satellites cost so much money.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Tom Servo said:


> Between that and paying ungodly prices for "leased" receivers, and the outrageous fees demanded for HD PPV, I wonder how they get any new customers at all. Finally, if I were to drop one of my spare HD non-DVR receivers, I'd save $5/month, but if I ever wanted it back it'd be what&#8230; $100 "lease" fee to get a new one? Plus two more years commitment? That's insane.


What is this "lease" fee you guys are talking about? I'm currently paying $57.99 for Total Choice Plus + $6.00 for DVR + $0 for VOD (and let me tell you if they ever charge a SINGLE PENNY FOR THIS USELESS CRAP I'LL CANCEL IT IN A HEART BEAT) + $0 for HD courtesy channels + $10 for HD access.

I've *NEVER* paid any "leased receiver" fee. Then again, I've never gotten a receiver directly from DirecTV. I have a HR20-100 HD DVR.

Looking at my bill (the one I pulled out from 12/08, so its a year old now), it shows up like this:

Fees
Primary Leased Receiver 4.99

Adjustment and Credits
Primary Leased Receiver -4.99

So they do "charge" me for it, but I have a permanent monthly credit for it, so they don't charge me anything for it. Still. I think currently its 5.99 or something and I get the 5.99 credit or whatever it is.

I seem to recall that they tried to charge me for it once a couple of years ago and I yelled at a bunch of people for about half an hour and they switched it back to owned (thus the credit). I remember they said I had to pay $999 to "own it" and I yelled at them some more and said "its $300 or so everywhere on the street, why the f$ck would I pay you $999 for it? etc."

I've been with DTV since 2002, so that could have had something to do with it...

But yeah, if you get the box for free, then I could see them raping you every month. Sheesh... at $5 a month, you might as well buy it off eBay or something for a $100 and break even in 20 months.


----------



## sigma1914

Every provider increases rates...it's part of the business. *Choose which ever provider is right for you*...whining, ranting, and complaining won't change things.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Tom Servo said:


> D* has me over a barrel but what am I gonna do? Read books? Pshaw.
> 
> I dunno why you guys think OTA is a comparable option. Sure, it's free but gosh ain't nothing on the networks I wanna watch, except for Fox's Sunday night animation shows.


I have the HD-DVR with OTA built it. They took it out of the new boxes so they could rape you for more $$$. I don't use it much to be honest with you. Only thing I watch on it is This Old House. The picture vs. DirecTV locals is not that much different.


----------



## sigma1914

SledgeHammer said:


> I have the HD-DVR with OTA built it. They took it out of the new boxes so they could rape you for more $$$. I don't use it much to be honest with you. Only thing I watch on it is This Old House. The picture vs. DirecTV locals is not that much different.


Advice: Tone down the words a tad...it's just tv.


----------



## codespy

SledgeHammer said:


> What is this "lease" fee you guys are talking about? I'm currently paying $57.99 for Total Choice Plus + $6.00 for DVR + $0 for VOD (and let me tell you if they ever charge a SINGLE PENNY FOR THIS USELESS CRAP I'LL CANCEL IT IN A HEART BEAT) + $0 for HD courtesy channels + $10 for HD access.
> 
> I've *NEVER* paid any "leased receiver" fee. Then again, I've never gotten a receiver directly from DirecTV. I have a HR20-100 HD DVR.
> 
> ...............


Your first receiver is free. Any additional is $4.99 each per month


----------



## SledgeHammer

codespy said:


> Your first receiver is free. Any additional is $4.99 each per month


I think you are talking about the mirror fee. Thats something different. Some people don't "own" the 1st receiver.


----------



## Jeremy W

SledgeHammer said:


> Whats next? They'll charge us a rental fee for the remote control?


Hey, that used to be a standard practice in the cable industry, so you never know...


----------



## say-what

SledgeHammer said:


> I think you are talking about the mirror fee. Thats something different. Some people don't "own" the 1st receiver.


DirecTV no longer uses the term "mirror fee". Leased or own, you pay 4.99 per month for each receiver - 1st receiver, leased or owned is free, but they charge and credit the fee. 2nd reciver and beyond gets charged. If your receiver is considered leased, it's marked a lease fee, if you own the receiver it's an additional receiver fee, but it's all the same, just different terminology.


----------



## Jeremy W

say-what said:


> If your receiver is considered leased, it's marked a lease fee, if you own the receiver it's an additional receiver fee, but it's all the same, just different terminology.


Except in some states, where taxes are charged for leased receivers but not owned receivers. So even the first receiver comes with an additional 30 cent charge in Michigan, because they only credit back the lease fee, not the tax.


----------



## LCDSpazz

Given the huge carriage fee increases that many individual channels (especially sports channels) get every cycle from cable and sat. providers, I'm surprised these increases aren't even larger. Have you seen the profits these channels make? ESPN made over 4 BILLION in profit last year. The channels focused on college sports demanding huge rights fees are truly ridiculous considering they don't even pay their damn players.


----------



## SledgeHammer

LCDSpazz said:


> Given the huge carriage fee increases that many individual channels (especially sports channels) get every cycle from cable and sat. providers, I'm surprised these increases aren't even larger. Have you seen the profits these channels make? ESPN made over 4 BILLION in profit last year. The channels focused on college sports demanding huge rights fees are truly ridiculous considering they don't even pay their damn players.


Well, not everybody cares about sports. It would be nice if DTV offered a way to opt out of these overpriced channels and save some money.


----------



## tralfaz

SledgeHammer said:


> I never paid a f'n DVR fee til they dumped the f'n Tivos since I had the life time sub.


If that's true, then you should still have lifetime on your DVR's. The TiVo lifetime (tied to particular receivers) became a DVR lifetime (tied to the account), 5 or 6 years ago.


----------



## Lord Vader

Jeremy W said:


> If the increase in the DVR fee means that they decided a separate MRV fee is a bad idea, then I can live with it. If they're increasing the DVR fee *and* are still going to have an MRV fee, then this is starting to get out of control.


Then be prepared for it to, in fact, be out of control, Jeremy. Odds are very likely that there will be an MRV fee.


----------



## Araxen

Rate increase and still no Vs. What a joke Directv has become. I'll seriously thinking about switching to Dish once their new DVR comes out.


----------



## tealcomp

Amen to that (regarding the sports comments)...



SledgeHammer said:


> Well, not everybody cares about sports. It would be nice if DTV offered a way to opt out of these overpriced channels and save some money.


----------



## SledgeHammer

tralfaz said:


> If that's true, then you should still have lifetime on your DVR's. The TiVo lifetime (tied to particular receivers) became a DVR lifetime (tied to the account), 5 or 6 years ago.


Hmm... actually, I think I bought the T60 off of eBay, so it came with a lifetime activation. I never lifetime'd it myself.


----------



## tealcomp

Actually, that is WHY providers get away with this garbage; people have a "sheep" mentality; if enough people dropped their service I can assure you D* would rethink their increase; it's all about basic economics; just ask XM..



sigma1914 said:


> Every provider increases rates...it's part of the business. *Choose which ever provider is right for you*...whining, ranting, and complaining won't change things.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Lord Vader said:


> Then be prepared for it to, in fact, be out of control, Jeremy. Odds are very likely that there will be an MRV fee.


You know... why would anybody pay money for that? I like gadgets as much as the next guy, but why not just record something on the TV you intend to watch it on? Or go watch it on that TV? Save yourself $5 a month, which I'm betting is what they'll charge for MRV. Which is a double rip off, since they are already getting you for the DVR "mirror".


----------



## tealcomp

Lord Vader said:


> Then be prepared for it to, in fact, be out of control, Jeremy. Odds are very likely that there will be an MRV fee.


For me, paying for MRV is about as likely as purchasing a VOD..or a snowball's chance in hell


----------



## tralfaz

SledgeHammer said:


> Hmm... actually, I think I bought the T60 off of eBay, so it came with a lifetime activation. I never lifetime'd it myself.


It should have still transferred to your account.


----------



## SledgeHammer

tealcomp said:


> Actually, that is WHY providers get away with this garbage; people have a "sheep" mentality; if enough people dropped their service I can assure you D* would rethink their increase; it's all about basic economics; just ask XM..


Exactly. Re the MRV fee... I'm betting that'll eventually become free when they see most people aren't willing to pay $5/month to save a trip from the bedroom to the living room.

As I said above, if I'm gonna save $10/month switching to DISH, well, hell, thats a pretty sweet deal. Although I think I'm going to have some wiring issues. When I built my house I had them run 2 RG6's from the living room up to the attic for the twin tuners. That part will still work, but I'm stacking the OTA feed on one of the lines, not sure how that'll work in the DISH world.


----------



## joshjr

dubber deux said:


> As I remember they stopped carrying Versus (fine with me TV sports don't interest me much at all) yet my bill didn't go down one red cent and yet I don't see a comparable channel substituted for it YET! Tell us D* why are subs still paying for this channel when they don't get it anymore????!


Yeah but with the price increase you also will not see any additional charges when more channels are added in the next year either. With D12 launching in less then a day we will see more channels added next year. To me sounds like fair is fair. If you dont want to pay more when new channels are added then you dont get money deducted when some drop. Surely you can understand that.


----------



## SledgeHammer

tralfaz said:


> It should have still transferred to your account.


Hmm... I'll give them a call tommorow and see whats up. Hell, I wouldn't mind saving $5/$6 a month. That'd certainly make a switch to DISH a _bit_ less desirable.


----------



## tealcomp

joshjr said:


> Yeah but with the price increase you also will not see any additional charges when more channels are added in the next year either. With D12 launching in less then a day we will see more channels added next year. To me sounds like fair is fair. If you dont want to pay more when new channels are added then you dont get money deducted when some drop. Surely you can understand that.


Yes, but WHAT new channels; exactly why do they need yet another satellite to broadcast MORE garbage channels. Just what I want to be paying for, the GOD channel in HD, more multi-casts of ESPN; give me a break.

I have been with D* since inception, but I am seriously looking at alternatives (which for me would be 1) Dish or 2) Cancel it all) and work on other things 

-Dan


----------



## DodgerKing

joshjr said:


> Maybe the DVR fee increase is to get us more ready for the HD TiVo DVR coming.


So we have to pay more because some what a DVR with the worst UI ever created?


----------



## Jeremy W

Lord Vader said:


> Then be prepared for it to, in fact, be out of control, Jeremy. Odds are very likely that there will be an MRV fee.


I know they've said there will be a fee, I just have the slightest sliver of hope that the extremely negative reaction on here caused them to re-think the separate fee, and instead increase the DVR fee. I don't think it's likely at all, but it would be nice.


----------



## Jeremy W

DodgerKing said:


> So we have to pay more because some what a DVR with the worst UI ever created?


No, the fee has nothing to do with Tivo. If/when it ever comes out, it will be a separate fee.


----------



## DodgerKing

Jeremy W said:


> No, the fee has nothing to do with Tivo. If/when it ever comes out, it will be a separate fee.


Which was part of my point to the poster who made that suggestion.


----------



## Wisegoat

Are those of us with the grandfathered in Free DVR service with Premier still going to get that? I did not see anything that said it was going away. Only reason I still have the Premier package. 

If I have to pay the DVR service, I will drop all movie channels and go to Netflix via my Blu-Ray player.


----------



## SledgeHammer

tralfaz said:


> It should have still transferred to your account.


Hmm... well, I just called 'em and the guy didn't know what the hell I was talking about. He said the Tivo lifetime sub was dropped when I went to the HD-DVR . I'll probably try to call tommorow "customer retention" and see.


----------



## joshjr

tealcomp said:


> Yes, but WHAT new channels; exactly why do they need yet another satellite to broadcast MORE garbage channels. Just what I want to be paying for, the GOD channel in HD, more multi-casts of ESPN; give me a break.
> 
> I have been with D* since inception, but I am seriously looking at alternatives (which for me would be 1) Dish or 2) Cancel it all) and work on other things
> 
> -Dan


I spoke with a lady at the home office last week who implied that the missing DMA's are likely to get their locals next year. I dont get my locals so I would be happy to get them. Plus if we can get Vs back or WGN in HD or a few others. We are bound to get something. Wait and see.


----------



## Sackchamp56

These annual price increase threads are almost as entertaining as the yearly "why isnt superfan free" threads. What a great way to pass time


----------



## SledgeHammer

joshjr said:


> I spoke with a lady at the home office last week who implied that the missing DMA's are likely to get their locals next year. I dont get my locals so I would be happy to get them. Plus if we can get Vs back or WGN in HD or a few others. We are bound to get something. Wait and see.


I was just doing some research about switching to DISH and you might want to re-think it. Apperently they are going to be charging $14 to $17 PER DVR!!! !rolling


----------



## joshjr

SledgeHammer said:


> I was just doing some research about switching to DISH and you might want to re-think it. Apperently they are going to be charging $14 to $17 PER DVR!!! !rolling


No thanks. Dish has nothing I want. They wont work for me thats for sure. If I wanted crap for service then I would go with the local cable co. They can screw me over just as good if not better then E*.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Well I guess they have to pay for the new satellite and new HD channels somehow. I hope they bring back Versus with this increase.


----------



## James Long

SledgeHammer said:


> I was just doing some research about switching to DISH and you might want to re-think it. Apperently they are going to be charging $14 to $17 PER DVR!!! !rolling


We have not quite figured that out yet ... it appears that the $17 for a two room DVR includes a $5 "second output" fee that is refunded if one connects the receiver to a phone line/internet. So it is $12 ... a discount over the current $5.98 DVR + $7.00 additional receiver fee.

DISH's new $14 charge applies to a non-DVR that serves two rooms. Single receivers will be charged at $7 each. All of these charges are AFTER the first receiver, which is "free" (except the DVR charge, of course).

With DISH people with a lot of SD receivers will see the big increases ... $2 each ... while people with only HD receivers and HD DVRs will likely see a price drop. We're still waiting for the official word to sort it all out.

So instead of adding $3-$5 per package (including grandfathered packages) DISH will be adjusting their fees in a way that charges some customers more and some customers less.

It is interesting to note that DirecTV is starting this in February instead of in March. It isn't the first time they have raised prices in February, but it is earlier that the past couple of years.


----------



## Shades228

Wisegoat said:


> Are those of us with the grandfathered in Free DVR service with Premier still going to get that? I did not see anything that said it was going away. Only reason I still have the Premier package.
> 
> If I have to pay the DVR service, I will drop all movie channels and go to Netflix via my Blu-Ray player.


So you're paying $50 more to save $6 a month with DVR service? Seriously?


----------



## Mark Holtz

What is especially amusing is that some of the cable channels is owned by the cable providers (i.e. Comcast).

If you are unhappy with the current situation with the channels, why don't you write to your local congresscritter? You can find out who represents you by going to [urhttp://www.votesmart.org/]Project Vote Smart[/url]. Then, by writing a snail mail, your voice can be heard.


----------



## DanER40

When did Plus HD DVR become a legacy package?

Edit

I actually read the entire OP and saw that they are renaming the packages to make it seem like the price increase isn't really happening.


----------



## Jeremy W

SledgeHammer said:


> Slightly off-topic


Not slightly. Completely.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Jeremy W said:


> Not slightly. Completely.


LOL. True dat. Sorry, we now return to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## MikeW

Bummer. This year I got the edict that there will be no changes in salaries. Wish it could hold true for the services I receive. I've been dinged by everyone but the trash collector and bug guy.


----------



## Maleman

Sorry but can someone quickly answer this question: I am a newbie to Directv (4 months)

I have this under my account:

Plus HD DVR=$75.99

12months credit=$16

to be honest I can't make light of my bill lol, there's credits/programming changes etc , i can't really keep track but what I listed is my base package....I think.

Will this be affected in Feb?

Thank you.


----------



## Jeremy W

DanER40 said:


> I actually read the entire OP and saw that they are renaming the packages to make it seem like the price increase isn't really happening.


No, they're not renaming anything.


----------



## Shades228

They're no longer having the "Plus" packages. So you will have Choice Xtra w/ dvr and/or HD if you change packages compared to before you would have had Plus DVR or Plus HD DVR. So they removed 2 packages they didn't rename anything as Jeremy stated.

The largest increase is premier which is going up $5 more. Which now makes the last premium no longer almost free. The second largest increase are all the Total Choice/Total Choice Plus people who now only save $1.50 instead of the $3 prior.


----------



## CJTE

Grentz said:


> Again, I don't really understand the logic. You are paying more for DirecTV because you are getting so much more. Get the equivalent from your cable co and it will be more expensive (and probably not even equivalent).
> 
> It is easier for me to pay for Choice, or Family, or no-HD, or how about just OTA w/a Tivo. But I have decided that I want more. How much you want is up to you
> 
> I have had DirecTV for 14yrs, and they have always been cheaper for the equivalent in comparison to cable and usually right around Dish's prices (right now Directv is cheaper than Dish for me). They didn't stay in this position by raising prices any more than their competitors have.


I've used that same argument many times to convert and keep customers. I understand it. The problem is, I'm no longer interested in it.
I tried OTA, atleast, with a cheapo $30 antenna. Wasn't interested in investing more in it for what I would be getting out.
I'm sure if I duplicated what I have elsewhere the cost would be higher. But I'm no longer interested in what I have. To get the channels I want, I'm essentially stuck with what I have.
To better respond to your statement, I reference the following quote:


Titon said:


> You know what the really really sad thing is? There isn't crap on tv to even consider keeping directv or any provider to begin with.
> 
> I remember the old big dish days when you could choose what you wanted on your package. Now you get 6-8 channels to watch and *the rest is garbage.*


Asterisks added by me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and while I've never ever advocated for 'a la carte' before (if that's how it's written out), I'm at that point now!



Jeremy W said:


> If the increase in the DVR fee means that they decided a separate MRV fee is a bad idea, then I can live with it. If they're increasing the DVR fee *and* are still going to have an MRV fee, then this is starting to get out of control.


Agree 100%!



joshjr said:


> Yeah but with the price increase you also will not see any additional charges when more channels are added in the next year either. With D12 launching in less then a day we will see more channels added next year. To me sounds like fair is fair. If you dont want to pay more when new channels are added then you dont get money deducted when some drop. Surely you can understand that.


Valid point. I personally am at a point now where I wish I could pick/choose which 'new channels' I got though haha, because I probably won't watch most of them.



joshjr said:


> I spoke with a lady at the home office last week who implied that the missing DMA's are likely to get their locals next year. I dont get my locals so I would be happy to get them. Plus if we can get Vs back or WGN in HD or a few others. We are bound to get something. Wait and see.


So when you get your local channels, your package is going to increase another $3. Unless you are already getting them in SD.

//

While there doesn't seem to be a way to logically do this.
I'd love to have a different base package scheme...
Keeping the packages essentially the way they are now, with the option to toss out some channels and pull in other channels.
Some will argue that this will kill a lot of up and coming programming, and would cost more because a lot of people would ditch things like the shopping networks, but I have a different kind of vision in my pipe dream.
*------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
In my pipe dream, Removing channels that help 'subsidize the package' like the shopping networks could cost a dollar or 2 more (maybe even per channel). Or maybe certain channels (like required to carry government channels) would be 'locked' in so that they couldnt be removed. But there are PLENTY of channels that I simply don't watch, and wouldn't mind removing in option for channels I do watch.
For example, I could go with the Choice package @ $50 or where-ever it is now, then remove some of the channels I dont watch at $0.10c each. Then add a channel I do watch that isn't normally in that package (like SPEED, I presume) for $1.00


----------



## Jeremy W

CJTE said:


> In my pipe dream, Removing channels that help 'subsidize the package' like the shopping networks could cost a dollar or 2 more (maybe even per channel).


Why would anyone do that?


----------



## Milkman

I have a question. I looked through this whole thread and didn't see it answered.

I currently have TC+ with all of the line item fees.

According to the D* website, there appears to be a package called "CHOICE XTRA™ + HD DVR" which costs $75.99 per month.

I don't see that price changing. What is the story with that? Does that package have a line item for HD and a line item for the DVR charge, or is it built into the package? The package name may be a little misleading.


----------



## smiddy

Sackchamp56 said:


> does 4 bucks a month really break anybody's budget? If so, it would be wise to not subscribe to a tv service in the first place. It sucks, but I'm over it.


Yeah, this is whree I'm at too, no big deal, increases should be expected. :grin:


----------



## jal

Well, Im seriously considering leaving Directv. These guys have finally hit a price point which makes me feel the service isn't worth it. I have Plus HD DVR right now. With taxes and the few extra boxes I have, my bill will be over $100 now, including taxes, for NO premium channels. I hate to say it, but it may be time to go back to cable.


----------



## jal

It's not just the $4, its $4 or $5 a YEAR. It's enough already. Doesn't matter how much money someone has or doesn't have, it's the value they perceive they are getting for their money.


----------



## Milkman

smiddy said:


> Yeah, this is whree I'm at too, no big deal, increases should be expected. :grin:


The increase is expected, although with everything going on I wouldn't expect it to be as high as it is (and early).

I am a little peeved at the DVR fee. Not for the $1.00 increase, but rather the principle of it.

Stuart made mention early on in this thread that there will be more communication forthcoming. Only thing I can think of is that the MRV fee will be built into that DVR fee. Still not happy about that, but guess we will just have to see how this shakes out.


----------



## dodge boy

MikeW said:


> Bummer. This year I got the edict that there will be no changes in salaries. Wish it could hold true for the services I receive. I've been dinged by everyone but the trash collector and bug guy.


Only if you accept that, where's your negotiating skills? I had a boss tell me that once, I had a different job and turned in a 2 weeks notice 2 days after I heard that statement. Turns out there were no raises for everyone but me and those that were fortunate enough to be in the union (shop and field) that year.


----------



## Grafixguy

lee78221 said:


> That's never going to happen. Look at the thread when DirecTV dropped Versus! I pay X I should be getting Y was the sentiment . Most people say they want the provider to "hold the line on programming costs", but get mad when they do and drop to go to someone else.


My post was dripping with sarcasm. The point is that they're fighting over a nickel or so a month and jacking up rates $4.00/month.

In the mean time, they've pocketed somewhere around $12 million in rights fees they haven't paid for Versus.

The Versus situation is a flat out lie on the part of DTV and this price hike is all the proof I need.


----------



## reubenray

What does the new rates do the Choice Extra + HD-DVR or Choice Extra+ DVR?

I currently have the Total Choice Plus and pay the $6.00 extra charge for DVR. I also pay the extra charges for HD. D* has been pushing me for a while to change to something new. The only one that would consider is one of the above choices.

Are there any advantages to do this? The only way I would do this is either less money per month or additional channels that I want.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

jal said:


> Well, Im seriously considering leaving Directv. These guys have finally hit a price point which makes me feel the service isn't worth it. I have Plus HD DVR right now. With taxes and the few extra boxes I have, my bill will be over $100 now, including taxes, for NO premium channels. I hate to say it, but it may be time to go back to cable.


With cable you are looking at about $6 per SD box $8-$10 per HD box and $15-$20 per HD DVR.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Well, another year, another price increase. All those who are surprised, raise your hand. 

All I can say is, your cable system may differ but the local system here has been raising rates 12-16% per year for the last 10 years. The two-room DVR system I have now would cost me well over $100/month with cable. 

Realistically, I think that we're going to continue to see price increases until the point that providers go IPTV straight to your home.


----------



## makersforme

Well I am on the Family package at $29.99 per month...I don't even see anything like that listed...what package is it? Anyone know?


----------



## tealcomp

reubenray said:


> What does the new rates do the Choice Extra + HD-DVR or Choice Extra+ DVR?
> 
> I currently have the Total Choice Plus and pay the $6.00 extra charge for DVR. I also pay the extra charges for HD. D* has been pushing me for a while to change to something new. The only one that would consider is one of the above choices.
> 
> Are there any advantages to do this? The only way I would do this is either less money per month or additional channels that I want.


I have the same package as you and right now (and, if I did my math correctly) from a cost perspective, the new package is still $2 more than TC+, + HD Access + HDDVR Svc (57.99+10+6) vs 75.99 "currently"; once the price adjustment goes into effect, (61.99+7+10) or 78.99 will make the legacy package "more". I have not sat down to actually see what the programming differences may be.

Maybe this is the way to get us off of our legacy package, but if it involves another 2 year commitment, they can forget it..they will just lose a 14+ year customer..I need to check into that though..before anyone jumps me 

-Dan


----------



## tealcomp

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well, another year, another price increase. All those who are surprised, raise your hand.
> 
> All I can say is, your cable system may differ but the local system here has been raising rates 12-16% per year for the last 10 years. The two-room DVR system I have now would cost me well over $100/month with cable.
> 
> Realistically, I think that we're going to continue to see price increases until the point that providers go IPTV straight to your home.


Stuart, that may be true, but doesn't mean we have to like it


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I don't like it either. Over the last month I went through all my expenses line-item by line-item and reduced those that I wasn't contractually bound to. But that's my choice, and I'm sure for other folks the choice will be to grin and bear it (or complain here, which is just fine.)

I know some folks over at DIRECTV and they're smart. If these price increases actually lead to lower revenues, they'll do something about it.


----------



## dodge boy

tealcomp said:


> I have the same package as you and right now (and, if I did my math correctly) from a cost perspective, the new package is still $2 more than TC+, + HD Access + HDDVR Svc (57.99+10+6) vs 75.99 "currently"; once the price adjustment goes into effect, (61.99+7+10) or 78.99 will make the legacy package "more". I have not sat down to actually see what the programming differences may be.
> 
> Maybe this is the way to get us off of our legacy package, but if it involves another 2 year commitment, they can forget it..they will just lose a 14+ year customer..I need to check into that though..before anyone jumps me
> 
> -Dan


unless I missed something TC+ will be $61.49, HD $10.00, DVR $7.00 for a total of $78.49

Plus HD DVR is going to be $79.99

Edit: Choice Xtra is going to be $63.99 so the newer packages are still higher.


----------



## tealcomp

Ooops, you are right, so there you have it; the new packages still cost more and without going item by item assuming the packages are comparable, there is NO advantage to switching that I can see, unless you downgrade the package.


----------



## tealcomp

For whatever reason, I pay 57.99 currently for TC+, so I would be paying 61.99, not sure where I am getting hit for another .50 lol.


----------



## erosroadie

Guess it's the cost of "doing business," or the cost of "added values." 

With a new sat successfully going up (fingers crossed), anticipation of new HD channels sometime next year, a hopeful resolution to the Versus fiasco (fingers crossed again (starting to go numb)), and an effective DVR service (with remote scheduling), I understand that I will have to pay ~$4/month more. I don’t like it, but I understand it. I also understand that I could look into alternatives (E*, local cable. Etc.) but they are increasing, too. 

So, after all the price increase dust settles from all providers, am I really worse-off, better-off, or neutral? I think I am neutral at best...


----------



## tealcomp

Personally I would like to see a Total Choice package of sorts with NO SPORTS whatsoever, and a requisite drop in monthly subscriptions. I know there are a lot of die hard sports fans here, but I have also seen a lot of people who are like me and could care less about that feature. I think if people want to have access to these higher programming costs (ie ESPN etc) they should be paying for that and not me


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I don't know if you'll see absolutely zero sports, as ESPN is considered a "basic" channel. But given some of the shenanigans originating from Versus and MSG, I wouldn't be surprised to see the high-cost, niche channels move to their own tier.


----------



## Steve

JoeTheDragon said:


> With cable you are looking at about $6 per SD box $8-$10 per HD box and $15-$20 per HD DVR.


As you know, you can't just compare box prices. Cablecos typically bundle everything into the monthly box prices, so unlike DirecTV, there are no up-front fees for equipment, or add'l monthly "HD" or "DVR" service charges.

And in the case of cablecos, there are often "triple plays" that reduce your monthly phone and internet service charges as well. Verizon even offers a "quadruple play" in some locales that discounts cell service as well. So when comparing vs. DirecTV, you really have to look at the whole picture, including up-front capital outlay for new customers or system expansion.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

That is indeed true and if you are willing to switch cable, telephone, internet and cell providers every two years you can do pretty well with new customer deals.


----------



## tealcomp

Comcast is NO deal, their signal in my area even for HD is subpar, and their prices are nuts; which is one reason why I continue to subscribe to D*.

But if I did what I should, I would take up reading again, and stop sitting in front of the boob tube  We Americans like to have our cake while eating I am sorry to say (myself included).


----------



## Steve

Stuart Sweet said:


> That is indeed true and if you are willing to switch cable, telephone, internet and cell providers every two years you can do pretty well with new customer deals.


Ya. Folks in my area bounce back and forth between Verizon and Cablevision for exactly that reason. Cablevision has no commitment, and Verizon's is a one year commitment with a 2-year price lock.

It's like car insurance. You really need to revisit it yearly. I saved almost $2k by switching from Company X to Geico for two cars + umbrella liability. Now Allstate is advertising they are $100's cheaper than Geico!


----------



## dodge boy

Stuart Sweet said:


> That is indeed true and if you are willing to switch cable, telephone, internet and cell providers every two years you can do pretty well with new customer deals.


Some people can do that, I myself, and I am not alone, do not buy something because of it's price (least expensive or most expensive) I buy something because I want it and trust me I did a cable intro deal, because I "thought" I wanted cable when my G/f had it and it had On Demand, it was the worst 4 days of my life. Now she has D* too.


----------



## uteotw

Seriously--how long can this continue? Every single year a fairly significant increase? Almost every bill I have is going up (health ins., home ins., car ins., gas, electric, water, just to name a few), yet pay is not, and I know that's not just for me. I'm at the old TC+, so I guess my only option is "Choice"? I also have the service plan but I've used it and am in IL w/tons of snow and at least a once a year dish issue. I guess I could drop that. I also really miss Versus--great fights and watch the Tour de France every summer, so...ugh.


----------



## tealcomp

Yes, I hate the hassle of switching providers. I was looking at Dish and now it looks like they have some changes in their pricing structure coming (if one can believe the rumors); I got a headache just looking at the explanations for how they charge for things; I have to admit D* is far more straight forward in my mind.

Maybe they gave the $5.00 break knowing the price increases were coming, to someway appease the "long-term" customers? I don't know, just a guess.

-Dan


----------



## c152driver

What's interesting to me is that for the economy as a whole, inflation has been pretty much non-existent for the past year.

Clearly, the economics of the networks are broken. The cable companies and networks are on their way to obsolescence and I think it's just a few years away. Expect some rash moves as they try to cling to their dying business models. Just look at Fox turning the screws with regards to carriage fees.


----------



## idigg

Once the Ceton 4 tuner cable tv card comes out, I'm switching from DirecTV to cable. I won't need any DVR's from the cable company, as I will record everything to the Windows 7 media center PC, and then use xbox 360's as extenders to view from other rooms.

This way, is a lot cheaper, as it's my equipment, not the providers. $59/month + $3 cable card rental fee is a lot cheaper than what I'm paying DirecTV for.


----------



## pfp

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, not everybody cares about sports. It would be nice if DTV offered a way to opt out of these overpriced channels and save some money.


*AMEN!*


----------



## pfp

joshjr said:


> Yeah but with the price increase you also will not see any additional charges when more channels are added in the next year either. With D12 launching in less then a day we will see more channels added next year. To me sounds like fair is fair. If you dont want to pay more when new channels are added then you dont get money deducted when some drop. Surely you can understand that.


But what channels are they - surely they will almost all be HD which already requires the addl $10/mo fee and likely others will be part of the HD extra pack which costs another extra $5/mo.


----------



## Milkman

Milkman said:


> I have a question. I looked through this whole thread and didn't see it answered.
> 
> I currently have TC+ with all of the line item fees.
> 
> According to the D* website, there appears to be a package called "CHOICE XTRA™ + HD DVR" which costs $75.99 per month.
> 
> I don't see that price changing. What is the story with that? Does that package have a line item for HD and a line item for the DVR charge, or is it built into the package? The package name may be a little misleading.


I am bumping this again. Hoping someone can clear this up for me. I don't see that the package above is going up, and if the DVR/HD fee is included in the package, I am curious if this package is staying put. It may then be better than TC+/HD/DVR.


----------



## Doug Brott

Milkman said:


> I am bumping this again. Hoping someone can clear this up for me. I don't see that the package above is going up, and if the DVR/HD fee is included in the package, I am curious if this package is staying put. It may then be better than TC+/HD/DVR.


That's the 'PLUS HD DVR $79.99/mo.;' item in the note .. So yes, it appears to be going up by $4/month. It's not clear (to me) whether or not this package will continue to be offered beginning 2/1 or not.


----------



## Justin23

Steve said:


> As you know, you can't just compare box prices. Cablecos typically bundle everything into the monthly box prices, so unlike DirecTV, there are no up-front fees for equipment, or add'l monthly "HD" or "DVR" service charges.
> 
> And in the case of cablecos, there are often "triple plays" that reduce your monthly phone and internet service charges as well.


Not always true..my local cable company here in Orlando is Brighthouse & their price is for 1 TV and not including the HD or DVR rental fees. They advertise that they have "Free HD", which is complete BS. The HD programming might be "free", but you have to pay each month for the box to watch the HD content.

The "triple play" more often than not is an intro price, you ALWAYS should look at what the price will go up to after the promo period ends.


----------



## Grentz

Doug Brott said:


> That's the 'PLUS HD DVR $79.99/mo.;' item in the note .. So yes, it appears to be going up by $4/month. It's not clear (to me) whether or not this package will continue to be offered beginning 2/1 or not.


It seems like it will not be offered as it is in the legacy area of the letter.


----------



## Milkman

Doug Brott said:


> That's the 'PLUS HD DVR $79.99/mo.;' item in the note .. So yes, it appears to be going up by $4/month. It's not clear (to me) whether or not this package will continue to be offered beginning 2/1 or not.


I suppose that makes sense, but I have a dumb question.

On the website it is called 'CHOICE XTRA™ + HD DVR'. The line item you are referring to is called 'PLUS HD DVR $79.99/mo.;'. Are we sure these are the same items??? I wonder why they would use a different name... It isn't like they are paying per word.


----------



## Que

1998 Total choice PLATINUM 47.99
1999 Total Choice $29.99
2000 Total Choice $31.99
2003 Total Choice $33.99
2004 Total Choice $36.99
2005 Total Choice $41.99
2006 Total Choice $44.99
2007 Total Choice $47.99
2008 Total Choice $50.99
2009 Total Choice $53.99

I know this is every year...I think ours will hit $4 more per month. Check the bill and let you know.


----------



## Shades228

Milkman said:


> I suppose that makes sense, but I have a dumb question.
> 
> On the website it is called 'CHOICE XTRA™ + HD DVR'. The line item you are referring to is called 'PLUS HD DVR $79.99/mo.;'. Are we sure these are the same items??? I wonder why they would use a different name... It isn't like they are paying per word.


Same thing. Hence the reason they are no longer doing the Plus packages. The difference is the Plus packages saved $1 by combining them


----------



## Grentz

Que said:


> 1998 Total choice PLATINUM 47.99
> 1999 Total Choice $29.99
> 2000 Total Choice $31.99
> 2003 Total Choice $33.99
> 2004 Total Choice $36.99
> 2005 Total Choice $41.99
> 2006 Total Choice $44.99
> 2007 Total Choice $47.99
> 2008 Total Choice $50.99
> 2009 Total Choice $53.99
> 
> I know this is every year...I think ours will hit $4 more per month...


They also have added a lot of channels in that time frame, invested more in infrastructure, grown as a company, and most importantly the networks have ALL raised their rates significantly.

Another thing to factor in is equipment costs, which are considerably less than they used to be. Think back to the HD-Tivo that gave 10 or so channels in HD and was $999! Or my first SD receiver that was $400 on major discount and required self setup of everything.


----------



## Milkman

Also, if I did the math correctly (and we are actually comparing apples to apples), it looks as though they have lessened the gap between the newer Choice packages and the old TC+ packages. The gap was $2.00 per month less (I think), and now it is only $1.50 less.

Instead of free Showtime, free PPV, etc., I'd like for them to just keep their loyalty gifts to themselves, and show it to us in keeping with the old structures. So if there is a $2.00 programming increase, give the same increase to everyone that gets those channels equally. By doing this, they would keep similar pricing in the different tiers only available to the older customers. THAT would be a true loyalty reward.


----------



## Milkman

Shades228 said:


> Same thing. Hence the reason they are no longer doing the Plus packages. The difference is the Plus packages saved $1 by combining them


Actually, the Choice Plus packages cost $2.00 more to combine them!!!! (compared to TC+)


----------



## CJTE

Jeremy W said:


> CJTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my pipe dream, Removing channels that help 'subsidize the package' like the shopping networks could cost a dollar or 2 more (maybe even per channel).
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone do that?
Click to expand...

Most people want to remove the shopping networks from their programing package. That would be the incentive to leave them alone.


----------



## RAD

Stuart Sweet said:


> That is indeed true and if you are willing to switch cable, telephone, internet and cell providers every two years you can do pretty well with new customer deals.


Only problem is with 4 HD DVR's and 3 HD STB's I couldn't afford to come back to DirecTV, too much of a upfront costs for that many STB's.


----------



## sigma1914

Sackchamp56 said:


> does 4 bucks a month really break anybody's budget? If so, it would be wise to not subscribe to a tv service in the first place. It sucks, but I'm over it.


This post should be stickied! It's so right on.


----------



## Milkman

sigma1914 said:


> This post should be stickied! It's so right on.


Cost isn't everything. There is always principle and a lot of people seem to forget that.


----------



## Drewg5

Oh man what is DirecTv doing. Now they have not only out priced DishNetwork but, Charter as well. Out pricing charter is not a good thing to do, not only will new subs not come but old ones will not return as well. I was paying DirecTv over $120 a month when I had them now closer to $85 with with the other sat people and, no loss to any channels I honestly view.


----------



## dcowboy7

Sackchamp56 said:


> does 4 bucks a month really break anybody's budget?





sigma1914 said:


> This post should be stickied! It's so right on.


If its nothing then can u send me the $4 each month & ill then i'll give it to them then....or just send me $48 & then your done for the year.


----------



## pfp

dcowboy7 said:


> If its nothing then can u send me the $4 each month & ill then i'll give it to them then....or just send me $48 & then your done for the year.


Or just prepay 3 years of price increases:
2010 - $4/mo = $144
2011 - $4/mo (assumed) = $96
2012 - $4/mo (assumed) = $48

Total = $288. Just in price increases for what you have now unless of course they decide to drop channels you already have (VS).


----------



## Stuart Sweet

OK, ok... just out of curiosity, what services are you aware of that haven't gone up in price? 

I could make a fuss that it's much cheaper now to show a movie because the hard drives are a lot cheaper than old film reels. And yet in 1998 I could go down to the General Cinema and pay $4.00 ... it's $12 now at the closest multiplex.


----------



## sigma1914

dcowboy7 said:


> If its nothing then can u send me the $4 each month & ill then i'll give it to them then....or just send me $48 & then your done for the year.


It's so easy to save $4/month, but people don't realize it. Eating out, buying vices (cigs, alcohol, coffee at shops), bottled water, & soda are all prime examples of ways we waste away $4+/month.

People should stop & think, "What do I want? A $10 mocha vente latte frap dbl foam OR my bill payed?"


----------



## MaxFan

Making the switch to Comcast. I ordered the Preferred package for $44.99 a month for 6 months. I will put my Directv account on Suspend until I figure out if I want to keep D*. The lack of Versus and now a price increase plus the removal of the XM channels is very hard to take.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

MaxFan, I genuinely wish you the best. Out of curiosity, what will Comcast Preferred cost you once the promotional rate expires?


----------



## MaxFan

Stuart Sweet said:


> MaxFan, I genuinely wish you the best. Out of curiosity, what will Comcast Preferred cost you once the promotional rate expires?


It should be $80.00 a month.


----------



## pfp

Stuart Sweet said:


> OK, ok... just out of curiosity, what services are you aware of that haven't gone up in price?
> 
> I could make a fuss that it's much cheaper now to show a movie because the hard drives are a lot cheaper than old film reels. And yet in 1998 I could go down to the General Cinema and pay $4.00 ... it's $12 now at the closest multiplex.


Mine, to my employer.
I offer congrats to all the people here who apparently got a 15% raise this year. With furloughs, I wound up getting a lower.


----------



## HDTVFreak07

They've picked a fine time to keep increasing their rates even in this current state of the economy. I might as well cancel and stick to OTA and purchasing blu-ray every time there's a re-run. I'm so sick of their rate increase when they think "Oh, it's only 3 bucks".

Edit: I KNOW not to blame DirecTV for that. I know the channel providers are the ones increasing their prices every year. Someone on here said, "does $4 per month really break you"? Hello!? 4 times 12 is $48! That's $48 I could use for food!!! They increased it last year and that's more bucks I've lost!


----------



## BattleScott

Stuart Sweet said:


> OK, ok... just out of curiosity, what services are you aware of that haven't gone up in price?
> 
> I could make a fuss that it's much cheaper now to show a movie because the hard drives are a lot cheaper than old film reels. And yet in 1998 I could go down to the General Cinema and pay $4.00 ... it's $12 now at the closest multiplex.


When I signed up for Yahoo DSL in 2003, it was $26.99 / month. After the first year, the rate plans were changed and ever since I have payed $19.99 / month for the same service.


----------



## Paul Secic

RAD said:


> So the Plus DVR and Plus HD DVR packages are being removed from available options to change to along with the price increase, bummer.
> 
> Guess the $10/month HD access fee at least isn't going up, would be nice if they just eliminated it.


HD charges will never go down on D&E sad to say


----------



## Paul Secic

BattleZone said:


> DirecTV and all other providers have seen LARGE increases in programming costs from the networks. Those costs are of course going to be passed on to the subscribers who generate those costs.
> 
> One of the reasons you don't have Versus right now is because DirecTV is fighting against these huge increases, to reduce the amount of money they have to raise your rates.
> 
> You can't really complain about DirecTV playing hardball and then complain about rate increases. If you want to complain about DirecTV not having Versus, then you are essentially saying that DirecTV should be willing to pay more to keep it, or in other words, they should raise everyone's bill in order to keep it.
> 
> Regardless, all providers will have rate increases this year, like most years. Most of us realize that this is the case, and we also realize that the amount of programming available to all of us has similiarly increased over the years.
> 
> In the end, pay TV is an optional luxury, not a necessity. You either pay what it costs or you live with OTA.


OTA equals sucks for me.


----------



## Justin23

MaxFan said:


> Making the switch to Comcast. I ordered the Preferred package for $44.99 a month for 6 months. I will put my Directv account on Suspend until I figure out if I want to keep D*. The lack of Versus and now a price increase plus the removal of the XM channels is very hard to take.


You are not going to lose any music channels...the SiriusXM channels are being replaced with SonicTap. The SonicTap lineup is very similiar to the SiriusXM one, so the channel you would listen to on SiriusXM would just have a different name now. I also believe SatRacer said in another post that you will actually GAIN music channels. Plus, I was getting sick of the commercials & the on-air DJs anyway.


----------



## Paul Secic

Movieman said:


> This i why they continue to raise rates. But at least there is alternatives. For some Comcast and Dish or even U-verse/FIOS is better even at the additional cost.
> 
> But I have to say you made extremely valid posts. Especially with this economy I do know people that need that extra $4. I guess a few of you are going to be doing some thinking once the Holidays are done.


Never get U-verse. I had lots of problems with them. You have been warned!


----------



## gfrang

Every one i talked to in my area is paying more for Comcast then i am,plus i would rather have D* than C* even if C* was less money.But everyone got to do whatever they feel is best for them. 

For myself i am looking at the bang for the buck scale and D* just doesn't score very high for me so i have to check out outher TV watching options.

Dish network has a package that will work for about 50 bucks but i think i will use OTA and IPTV and maybe FTA for History and BIO.


----------



## Shades228

For all the folks talking about canceling. Chances are most people will have leased equipment especially for DVR, HD and HD DVRs. Remember that if you are unhappy with the new service and want to go back it might cost even more to do so. Make sure you explore all options such as suspending an account or having it installed a long with existing DirecTV first.

Usually people will post about quitting and then post about being upset that DirecTV doesn't "want them back bad enough" because they won't give them what they had prior.


----------



## pablo

Why does TV have to go up each year? They're providing the same service. What has changed? I'm paying for my cable internet service the same as I have for a number of years now, close to a decade, ever since I switched from dial-up.


----------



## Shades228

pablo said:


> Why does TV have to go up each year? They're providing the same service. What has changed? I'm paying for my cable internet service the same as I have for a number of years now, close to a decade, ever since I switched from dial-up.


Because unlike video providers internet providers don't have to negotiate new rates every couple of years. There are also huge differences in costs compared to those two business's. The stations raise rates and those are passed on. Operating costs go up because of more customers and those get passed on.


----------



## Doug Brott

pablo said:


> Why does TV have to go up each year? They're providing the same service. What has changed? I'm paying for my cable internet service the same as I have for a number of years now, close to a decade, ever since I switched from dial-up.


Hollywood/Sports programmers charge more .. Those charges get passed along. Telco chargers are typically fixed for longer periods and often regulated (the back hauls) so it's more of a fixed cost .. The result? TV goes up, Internet stays about the same


----------



## joshjr

tealcomp said:


> Personally I would like to see a Total Choice package of sorts with NO SPORTS whatsoever, and a requisite drop in monthly subscriptions. I know there are a lot of die hard sports fans here, but I have also seen a lot of people who are like me and could care less about that feature. I think if people want to have access to these higher programming costs (ie ESPN etc) they should be paying for that and not me


We have been over and over this in several threads. Everyone pays for channels that someone else watches that they dont. That is what helps keep the cost down. Truth be told you would probably pay the same price and have just the channels you want. Im sure I pay for some channels you like that I dont care about. The most effective way is to share the costs so we all get a little of what we want and keep the costs down. In the end this is a better solution to keep more people happy in my opinion.


----------



## joshjr

pfp said:


> But what channels are they - surely they will almost all be HD which already requires the addl $10/mo fee and likely others will be part of the HD extra pack which costs another extra $5/mo.


I can think of any channels added to the extra pack since I joined in August of 08.


----------



## joshjr

pfp said:


> Mine, to my employer.
> I offer congrats to all the people here who apparently got a 15% raise this year. With furloughs, I wound up getting a lower.


I havent recieved a raise in 2 years and not really one in site this year either but Im not complaining about the increase.


----------



## Grentz

channelsthatneedadded said:


> yeah who actually NEEDS variety or all the sports channels that the so-called sports leader lacks huh ?
> 
> or more variety in music and movies and older shows that appeal to more people than the reality junk huh ?


More along the lines of, I have tons of other channels in HD that do appeal to me so why do I need "variety" which is a marketing term for more filler :lol:

Sorry, but I don't sub to premiums so those are out. I dont have any interest in public access, so those are out. I really don't have much interest in those sports channels, so those are out. I don't have any interest in animation or arts, so those are out. None of those music channels look that appealing, you guessed it...those are out. And finally, besides the military history channel, the Etc. don't interest me so those are out.

It is all about what YOU watch and desire. If DirecTV does not carry those channels YOU want, look into other local providers or Dish. I bet there are channels DirecTV carries that FiOS does not have in some areas.


----------



## eilugo

Anyone know what channels are included in the Total Choice Moblie package? I'm guessing it will be a new one come Feb.


----------



## Grentz

eilugo said:


> Anyone know what channels are included in the Total Choice Moblie package? I'm guessing it will be a new one come Feb.


It's not new, it is just for the KVH mobile setups.

http://www.kvh.com/tcm/


----------



## iamqnow

joshjr said:


> We have been over and over this in several threads. Everyone pays for channels that someone else watches that they dont. That is what helps keep the cost down. Truth be told you would probably pay the same price and have just the channels you want. Im sure I pay for some channels you like that I dont care about. The most effective way is to share the costs so we all get a little of what we want and keep the costs down. In the end this is a better solution to keep more people happy in my opinion.


Correct, don't watch 2/3rds or more of what is available, especially sports.
I know everyone was bored to death with my holiday sparring with D* over a commitment. We are more than likely selling by April so I called and got a bunch of wrong answers. Originally on the phone I was told my extension was because of a programming change. Then online I was told it was because I had a defective leased receiver replaced. All this was fixed. In the interim, I called my local cable provider for pricing. Seems cable and sat. pricing are really close but cable can offer combos that would save me over $80. per month for more than I get now. The real issue is whole-home or MRV. I have all HD units, 1 DVR and 3 non. Well, my kids complain. They want recorders in their rooms. I don't want to pay almost $600 to upgrade my boxes AND extend my contract. Does not make sense. Cable will give me 4 HD/DVR units! My point is just that there is no"lease upgrade fee" ever with cable co's. They still have to provide equipment. Cable tv where I live looks as good as satelite. I am still happy with D*, they have always been pretty good to me, so I'm only dropping them if we do sell. But $80 a month savings for more (not necessarily better) service makes me wonder. The monthly for 1 year with HD cable with 2 premiums, 4 HD/DVR's, internet and loaded phone was $179.99. After 1 year $199.99 with nothing upfront.


----------



## sigma1914

iamqnow said:


> ...I don't want to pay almost $600 to upgrade my boxes AND extend my contract. Does not make sense. Cable will give me 4 HD/DVR units! My point is just that there is no"lease upgrade fee" ever with cable co's. They still have to provide equipment. Cable tv where I live looks as good as satelite. I am still happy with D*, they have always been pretty good to me, so I'm only dropping them if we do sell. But $80 a month savings for more (not necessarily better) service makes me wonder. The monthly for 1 year with HD cable with 2 premiums, 4 HD/DVR's, internet and loaded phone was $179.99. After 1 year $199.99 with nothing upfront.


4 HD DVRs on a cable system and your total for tv, net, and phone is $179.99? I've never seen a cable company give HDDVRs for no less than $10 each, with most being $12-$17...What company is this?


----------



## Lee L

Steve said:


> It's like car insurance. You really need to revisit it yearly. I saved almost $2k by switching from Company X to Geico for two cars + umbrella liability. Now Allstate is advertising they are $100's cheaper than Geico!


I have noticed this also. With all of them saying they are cheaper than all the rest, they are jsut teaching us that they do not value loyalty.

As far as DirecTV, it would be nice to have no icrease, but that is not realistic. THey are increasing less than Time Warner in this area is, so I guess I can take some solace in that. I will have to say that I will be a little POed if they increase the DVR fee and also charge for MRV. As a customer and stockholder, I think it is a wrong decision if thats what they end up doing. I think they will lay the proverbial last straw with that move. I guess if I am wrong, I at least get some portfolio gains.


----------



## iamqnow

sigma1914 said:


> 4 HD DVRs on a cable system and your total for tv, net, and phone is $179.99? I've never seen a cable company give HDDVRs for no less than $10 each, with most being $12-$17...What company is this?


Comcast. They have called 3 times since last Saturday to confirm an installation for this coming Saturday, the 2nd. I did not order it, I was just checking prices. Actually they are calling to tell me I need to confirm a release for them to snatch my phone # from Verizon. A little scary, I must admit. I did a chat with them, and the 1st rep took forever to confirm prices. We got cut off somehow so I got back on with another rep, and the pricing was confirmed. If you are skeptical if the pricing, so was I. But the 2nd rep confirmed them. Who knows what they would actually show up with if I went through with the deal.


----------



## Steve

sigma1914 said:


> 4 HD DVRs on a cable system and your total for tv, net, and phone is $179.99? I've never seen a cable company give HDDVRs for no less than $10 each, with most being $12-$17...What company is this?


That's a bit above average for lower Westchester County in NY. Both Verizon and Cablevision offer $90 "Triple Plays". DVR's run about $15 each from Verizon. Only $7 each (w remote) from Cablevision, but they now have a $10 DVR fee (household). So $38/month for 4 DVR's.

I'd love to get confirmation from a customer, but it looks like Cablevision may have actually lowered their prices a bit from last year, probably due to FiOSTV competition.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Grentz said:


> Except maybe the military history channel.


That and the Pentagon channel, I would really like to see those 2 added.


----------



## Grentz

channels86 said:


> a few have less channels, most have way more ... do the actual search and you will see what i seen


Look at charts like this and continue to tell me that cable has so many more channels (also look at the actual channels, not just the counts):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1058081

You also have to remember the sports like NFL Sunday Ticket, Center Ice, Cricket Ticket, MLB Extra Innings, NASCAR Hot Pass, NBA League Pass, MLS Direct Kick, etc.

All I am saying is that DirecTV is far from lagging behind in channels. Do they have them all? No. Are there some I wish they would add? Yes. Should people compare and find what channels they are interested in before subscribing? Yes.


----------



## TBlazer07

pablo said:


> Why does TV have to go up each year? They're providing the same service. What has changed?


The TOP 10 reasons why DirecTV can raise rates every year:

10) Because we need 20 more 1080P HD PPV channels
9) Because everyone says "it's only a couple dollars, if you can't afford it go to OTA."
8) Because their subscriber numbers are constantly increasing and they are making more money so they have to make even more.
7) Because we're all brainwashed that "everything goes up" so this should too.
6) Because we're all brainwashed that they have to pay so much more for programming that it's necessary to charge us more.
5) Because cable always raises their rates.
4) Because we all feel sorry for DirecTV and want to give them more so they can survive the depress, er, recession.
3) Because rocket fuel in Russia is 9,700,000,020 Rubles per gallon (edit: Sorry, I got that mixed up with the cost of wodka)
2) Because we're used to it.

And the NUMBER ONE reason why they can raise rates every year:

1) Because they can!​:lol::hurah::lol::hurah::grin::grin::hurah:

Just read this thread (and the other yearly ones) you'll see everyone tell you why it's ok.


----------



## Grentz

TBlazer07 said:


> Just read this thread (and the other yearly ones) you'll see everyone tell you why it's ok.


I want to clarify that I do not like, nor want to have, any rate increases. I just know that they are not specifically DirecTV's doing and really I have no where else to go that is any better thus I am not going to threaten to leave DirecTV.

I do try and straighten out some of the off the wall reasoning that some give and the attacks that some go on though.


----------



## TBlazer07

Grentz said:


> I want to clarify that I do not like, nor want to have, any rate increases. I just know that they are not specifically DirecTV's doing and really I have no where else to go that is any better thus I am not going to threaten to leave DirecTV.
> 
> I do try and straighten out some of the off the wall reasoning that some give and the attacks that some go on though.


Did you think I was serious and was blaming you?


----------



## harsh

Stuart Sweet said:


> But given some of the shenanigans originating from Versus and MSG, I wouldn't be surprised to see the high-cost, niche channels move to their own tier.


Based on what we know of the Versus spat, I'd be _very_ surprised to see DIRECTV moving any sports channels into less populace tiers anytime soon.


----------



## Grentz

TBlazer07 said:


> Did you think I was serious and was blaming you?


Nope, but you brought up a good time for me to explain my comments/intentions as I know some would see them as just being a DirecTV fanboy, unfair to other services, blindly following DirecTV, etc.


----------



## Ed Campbell

Still grandfathered AFAIK - still ain't changing anything.


----------



## tralfaz

pablo said:


> Why does TV have to go up each year? They're providing the same service. What has changed? I'm paying for my cable internet service the same as I have for a number of years now, close to a decade, ever since I switched from dial-up.


Earlier this month, my FIOS Internet went from $39.99 per month to $49.99 per month. A 25% price increase. I did not even receive any advanced notice, just the new charge on last weeks bill.


----------



## SParker

These companies and the increases when people are losing jobs, the economy is still crappy and for people on SSI not getting a COL increase. Yeesh.  We better get some new content.

I.E. BBCA HD and WGN HD.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Rupert Murdoch nails it in this article today

Mr. Murdoch nails it in the article below that coincidentally came out today. Programmers need the revenues to sustain their programming and they can't do it just on ad revenue. So they seek higher carriage rates from D*, E*, cable, telco, etc.

D* is raising rates on average about 4.5% for 2010. Many MSO's will raise them even higher.

These costs are HUGE and have to be passed on, no different than any other business. If the cost of coffee beans goes up, Starbucks has to raise their prices. No one likes to do this, that I can assure you.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Broadcasters-woes-could-spell-apf-2310306734.html?x=0&.v=1

That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups. *The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels -- a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.*

"Good programing is expensive," Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox, told a shareholder meeting this fall. "It can no longer be supported solely by advertising revenues."


----------



## Satelliteracer

pablo said:


> Why does TV have to go up each year? They're providing the same service. What has changed? I'm paying for my cable internet service the same as I have for a number of years now, close to a decade, ever since I switched from dial-up.


Programming content contracts change each year. When all of their rates go up each year for ESPN, HBO, AMC, CBS, etc, etc, then the distributors need to pass on those costs. Programming is very expensive.


----------



## James Long

Satelliteracer said:


> *The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels -- a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.*


Unfortunately the FCC is not helping to protect "free TV". Right now they are pondering the question of taking away more broadcast TV spectrum and forcing broadcasters to share channels in SD for their "free TV" feed to the 10% of Americans who don't pay for delivery. Then the FCC would sell the freed up spectrum to the highest bidder for yet more subscription data service.

Networks are businesses and they will follow the money. As long as there is good money in selling first run shows via affiliates on their networks to air on a market exclusive basis they will do so. When the networks make more money putting the same programming on their pay TV outlets or advertiser supported or subscription web sites they will move their content accordingly.

The more content moved to pay TV the more the content providers will want for their services. They don't care about the viewers ... they just want to be paid - whether or not people are watching. So they continue to raise rates and bundle channels and push DISH and DirecTV for more money. At some point either channels drop (if a contract is not renewed) or prices go up (if a contract rise was agreed to in better times or the content is "too important to drop").

If DISH, DirecTV and the many cable systems were charities or government run benefit programs I'd expect less increases in consumer costs. But they are businesses. Businesses running in debt on money borrowed from people who want a return on their investment. If they don't get their return they pull their investment and the companies can't borrow money to stay in business. (It is a shame that businesses run on debt flow instead of cash flow but that is an entirely different topic.)

The only good news in the price increases is that perhaps the number of people relying on "free TV" will rise and the FCC will consider them important. But I suspect that people will find a way to feed their children less (or get assistance) and still make that subscription TV bill.

Long winded and slightly off-topic ... but just a summary of the game. DirecTV is supposed to be a profitable business ... if they want to be profitable they need to charge you more. Including enough to offset subscriber loss and churn over higher prices.


----------



## Jeremy W

James Long said:


> Unfortunately the FCC is not helping to protect "free TV".


Nor should they. The spectrum that OTA TV stations are sitting on right now could be put to much better uses than providing a service that 90% of the country doesn't even bother with. It's a relic that has no place in today's cable and satellite world. Just kill it.

And that doesn't mean killing affiliates just yet, either. They can continue on, just like they always have. Although the whole affiliate model is pretty damn useless these days too.


----------



## Dolly

Actually maybe my husband and my tastes aren't like the rest of the country, but where is this "good programming"? We have D*'s top package and there are getting to be more and more times when I go through ever channel we get and find nothing on that I or my husband wants to watch :eek2: I know TV programming is not the fault of D* they are just the messenger so to speak. I don't really mine paying D* more money I just wish TV programming in general was better


----------



## Titon

SledgeHammer said:


> I would *NEVER* order the movie channels because there is simply nothing on them. I've had the weekend free previews, I've had the free for 3 months thing, and I can tell you... the fact that I had 20+ movie channels for 3 months and MAYBE watched 2 or 3 movies says it all.
> 
> Don't care about the sports packages, etc. Just care about quality programming.


THAT'S the sad thing in all of this. There IS NOT any quality programming.

Hence i wish i could choose the channels i want to watch instead of this crap i keep paying for.

:nono2:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Dolly said:


> Actually maybe my husband and my tastes aren't like the rest of the country, but where is this "good programming"? We have D*'s top package and there are getting to be more and more times when I go through ever channel we get and find nothing on that I or my husband wants to watch :eek2: I know TV programming is not the fault of D* they are just the messenger so to speak. I don't really mine paying D* more money I just wish TV programming in general was better


There's some truth to your observations...unfortunately....DirecTV *generally* is in the business to broadcast content...not create it.

I had the Premier package for some time in the past...and agree with you that there were times that *unseen* content was limited, despite all the channels of programming.

That's why we have multiple HD DVRs...so that we have additional options of viewing when we choose to do so - and for content we determine we want to see.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I personally wonder at what point will broadcasters become federally-subsidized. It may sound wrong to us but a lot of countries with a free press have state-owned broadcasting. Look at Great Britain. I feel that local, OTA broadcasting is a very important thing to have in this country but I wonder at what point it will be impossible to maintain the revenue.


----------



## smiddy

Stuart Sweet said:


> I personally wonder at what point will broadcasters become federally-subsidized. It may sound wrong to us but a lot of countries with a free press have state-owned broadcasting. Look at Great Britain. I feel that local, OTA broadcasting is a very important thing to have in this country but I wonder at what point it will be impossible to maintain the revenue.


Emergency Alert System (used to be Emergency Broadcast System), it isn't subsidy like you mention British Television (BTW, they've been making strides towards privatization of everything, including utilities etcetera, even though they are socialists) but can be used in extreme circumstances. DirecTV's roll in this is more recent than you would think, only being required since May of 2007. British Television is very limited however, those channels pushing the envelope are private stations, and satellite television is becoming bigger and bigger there, at least that was my experience when I lived there (which in reflection was quite a while ago BTW). I didn't like BBC for most of their shows.  Of course I watch AFN most of the time while I lived there.


----------



## SledDog

The increase on the DVR fee, if it includes MRV, does nothing for me... I have 1 DVR and an H20-100. The H20 can't be networked. So why should I have to pay that increase if it's for a service I can not use? 

Sure, I can get a network capable HD receiver... For a price and new commitment date. So no. IMHO, the DVR price increase should not cover MRV. Those that want MRV should have to pay for it.

Don't take money out of my pocket, or anyone else who does not use MRV, so those that want it and don't want to pay for it, can have it.

It's the same as the programming, if you want it, you should have to pay for it.


----------



## SParker

How would they charge for OTA? An added yearly tax?


----------



## Smthkd

All I can say is, if carrier's like D*,E* and other continue to raise programming prices they are stabbing themselves to a slow death. People are aware that their money is precious these days and a some point will say enough is enough and look for better deals. Tv is great and so is HD but Im not going to give my hard earned money away just because every company has greed the size of drug dealers. Either way they are going to lose this battle by A.) People leaving or B). People reducing their package to something lesser. They can save money many ways if they wanted too, but because they are adding alot of feature that the majority don't use, this is what hurt their profitability. Seriously, I know DOD sounded good when it was first mention for them to compete with Comcast's ON Demand but how many of you "REALLY" use it especially considering how "SLOW" the downloads are!? Worthless in my opinion, plus whatever happen to them moving all SD to MPEG4 like they said years ago to save space? Why do we need both a SD and HD channel when HD boxes can convert HD signals to SD? Why contemplate broadcasting 3D material when the vast majority do not have 3D capable sets? So you can say we had it first? A waste of consumer money in my opinion. I can go on and on! Will I keep D*? Probably so, but I will be looking where to save my money to offset this increase by either dropping to a lesser package or deactivating a receiver in one of my kids room. All Im saying is to increase prices because programming cost more is a bunch of _____ talk to me. At some point prices should settle and then come down because technology is cheaper due to mass acceptance. The price of a CD isn't $30 anymore for one, now I can buy 100 for $19.99. A digital camera isn't $700 anymore now I can get one for less than $99. So spare me the worthless talk about cost to operate going up (No offense Satracer) but companies like D* don't care about that, the only thing on their minds are profits and shareholders as always.


----------



## tralfaz

Dolly said:


> Actually maybe my husband and my tastes aren't like the rest of the country, but where is this "good programming"? We have D*'s top package and there are getting to be more and more times when I go through ever channel we get and find nothing on that I or my husband wants to watch :eek2:


Well, there's varying degrees of "good" and I rarely go through every channel looking for something to watch. That's why I have a DVR. Even now, when most shows are on a brief hiatus, I still have 31 episodes of Oz, 9 episodes of Mercy, 10 episodes of Trauma and 9 episodes of Three Rivers that I could watch if I needed to, but I'm trying to save those for summer watching (or deletion if some get canceled).


----------



## Movieman

James Long said:


> Unfortunately the FCC is not helping to protect "free TV". Right now they are pondering the question of taking away more broadcast TV spectrum and forcing broadcasters to share channels in SD for their "free TV" feed to the 10% of Americans who don't pay for delivery. Then the FCC would sell the freed up spectrum to the highest bidder for yet more subscription data service.
> 
> Networks are businesses and they will follow the money. As long as there is good money in selling first run shows via affiliates on their networks to air on a market exclusive basis they will do so. When the networks make more money putting the same programming on their pay TV outlets or advertiser supported or subscription web sites they will move their content accordingly.
> 
> The more content moved to pay TV the more the content providers will want for their services. They don't care about the viewers ... they just want to be paid - whether or not people are watching. So they continue to raise rates and bundle channels and push DISH and DirecTV for more money. At some point either channels drop (if a contract is not renewed) or prices go up (if a contract rise was agreed to in better times or the content is "too important to drop").
> 
> If DISH, DirecTV and the many cable systems were charities or government run benefit programs I'd expect less increases in consumer costs. But they are businesses. Businesses running in debt on money borrowed from people who want a return on their investment. If they don't get their return they pull their investment and the companies can't borrow money to stay in business. (It is a shame that businesses run on debt flow instead of cash flow but that is an entirely different topic.)
> 
> The only good news in the price increases is that perhaps the number of people relying on "free TV" will rise and the FCC will consider them important. But I suspect that people will find a way to feed their children less (or get assistance) and still make that subscription TV bill.
> 
> Long winded and slightly off-topic ... but just a summary of the game. DirecTV is supposed to be a profitable business ... if they want to be profitable they need to charge you more. Including enough to offset subscriber loss and churn over higher prices.


Its funny you mention this cause just today and article came out regarding legislation that is on the books for early next year regarding this. It was brought up by AT&T and Verizon for mobile service needs and Directv jumped on it too. Basically to reuse the OTA specrum better. Problem is that a lot of the owners dont want to give up this "realestate". They know that spectrum is very hard to get right now.



Jeremy W said:


> Nor should they. *The spectrum that OTA TV stations are sitting on right now could be put to much better uses than providing a service that 90% of the country doesn't even bother with.* It's a relic that has no place in today's cable and satellite world. Just kill it.
> 
> And that doesn't mean killing affiliates just yet, either. They can continue on, just like they always have. Although the whole affiliate model is pretty damn useless these days too.


That was one of the specific notes in the article I mentioned. Very few people do OTA anymore.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> There's some truth to your observations...unfortunately....DirecTV *generally* is in the business to broadcast content...not create it.
> 
> I had the Premier package for some time in the past...and agree with you that there were times that *unseen* content was limited, despite all the channels of programming.
> 
> That's why we have multiple HD DVRs...so that we have additional options of viewing when we choose to do so - and for content we determine we want to see.


I wonder how the merger with Comcast would affect this in the future. Directv would have to start purchasing up content producers to not be shut out by companies like Comcast.



Stuart Sweet;2315429[B said:


> ]I personally wonder at what point will broadcasters become federally-subsidized.[/B] It may sound wrong to us but a lot of countries with a free press have state-owned broadcasting. *Look at Great Britain.* I feel that local, OTA broadcasting is a very important thing to have in this country but I wonder at what point it will be impossible to maintain the revenue.


I hope never. IMHO.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Smthkd said:


> All I can say is, if carrier's like D*,E* and other continue to raise programming prices they are stabbing themselves to a slow death. People are aware that their money is precious these days and a some point will say enough is enough and look for better deals. Tv is great and so is HD but Im not going to give my hard earned money away just because every company has greed the size of drug dealers. Either way they are going to lose this battle by A.) People leaving or B). People reducing their package to something lesser. They can save money many ways if they wanted too, but because they are adding alot of feature that the majority don't use, this is what hurt their profitability. Seriously, I know DOD sounded good when it was first mention for them to compete with Comcast's ON Demand but how many of you "REALLY" use it especially considering how "SLOW" the downloads are!? Worthless in my opinion, plus whatever happen to them moving all SD to MPEG4 like they said years ago to save space? Why do we need both a SD and HD channel when HD boxes can convert HD signals to SD? Why contemplate broadcasting 3D material when the vast majority do not have 3D capable sets? So you can say we had it first? A waste of consumer money in my opinion. I can go on and on! Will I keep D*? Probably so, but I will be looking where to save my money to offset this increase by either dropping to a lesser package or deactivating a receiver in one of my kids room. All Im saying is to increase prices because programming cost more is a bunch of _____ talk to me. At some point prices should settle and then come down because technology is cheaper due to mass acceptance. The price of a CD isn't $30 anymore for one, now I can buy 100 for $19.99. A digital camera isn't $700 anymore now I can get one for less than $99. So spare me the worthless talk about cost to operate going up (No offense Satracer) but companies like D* don't care about that, the only thing on their minds are profits and shareholders as always.


No offense taken, but the practical matter of the situation is that programming costs are rising FASTER and HIGHER than what D* and other MSO's are increasing rates by. Of course when MSO's try to fight back and refuse the price increases (i.e. Versus, etc) then customers get upset. That's a tough spot.

You say that prices should settle, but they aren't. The cost of content is higher and higher every year and they are built into the contracts as well. As an example, HBO's new series The Pacific cost about $200 million to make, most ever for a mini-series. The rights for sports are huge, thus ESPN charges MSOs more and more each year. And on and on. There hasn't been any "settling of prices" in the industry, quite the contrary. And like any business, when your costs go up (in this case the price of programming), then your prices go up to cover those costs. This is also why it's not just D*, but E*, TWC, Comcast, Telcos, etc. All MSO's are dealing with the same programmers and costs are going up for everyone.


----------



## DirecTV3049

I'd like to point out a couple of things that have not been mentioned in this thread to this point:

1. It may seem counter-intuitive to raise prices in a recession (albeit one that technically ended), but not all markets are equal. When the price of butter goes up; the sales of butter alternatives goes up. The same with entertainment. I'd guess that since retail sales are down; restaurant sales too, etc. . . . People haven't STOPPED wanting to be entertained; instead, most have just switched to a "substitute" form of entertainment. I'd wager that more people are staying home and finding their entertainment there. If you find yourself staying home and plopping in front of the TV, then you're consuming more hours of television (i.e., demanding more). As such, even though there is an overall economic downturn, the demand for entertainment - especially home entertainment - has skyrocketed.

2. You cannot compare hardware price trends (generally downward) to "software" price trends (not really the correct terminology, but there is a difference these days between owning a physical thing and having to purchase a SERVICE to make the thing run). Or, as I like to call it, we seem to be living in a time of: "the more I buy, the less I really own." Last year, I got Blackberry for Sprint for $0 out of pocket . . . of course, I had to sign-up for a 2-year service commitment. Without a cell phone service provider (Sprint, Verizon, anybody), my Blackberry is just a door stop. The game is decidedly tilted in favor of the "pipe owners" and the "content providers."

3. Whether or not the DirecTV's suppliers raised their prices to them, it doesn't mean that DirecTV *had* to raise prices to consumers. Pass alongs may be logical, but they're not inevitable. EVERYONE - including corporations - is responsible for their own actions and how they react to changing conditions. So, I disagree with those who say "it's not DirecTV" really raising prices. Yes it is. 

4. No, I'm not personally happy that DirecTV is raising my costs (Total Choice Plus; with DVR Service; and the HD Extra Pack). My salary is going up only about 1.75% this year . . . most of which will go towards an increase in health care premiums (but, I'm lucky to have a job; that I'm getting any raise; and that I have health insurance - so I'm not complaining). 

5. Yep, everyone has a price point. Haven't reached mine yet. Cable isn't available in my corner of the subdivision and, according to Charter, probably never will be. I can go Dish or go without entirely. There was an interesting article in the New York Time's recently about a family that totally cut the cord on cable/satellite television. They were using the internet to provide them with their programming: Hulu, Netflix, YouTube. Saving a bundle every month (compared to what they used to spend), but - as the article noted - it required them to change HOW they watched television. Put differently: you're not going to have the neighbors over anytime soon to watch New Year's bowl games or the Superbowl with their set-up. But, the choice is there.


----------



## NOVA_Guy

My response to a $4 increase will be to give them $10 less of my money, resulting in a net loss of $6 per month to them. I'm going to get rid of 2 receivers I have that I don't really need, and just network a feed from one of my other 3 boxes over to the affected TVs.

My planned response for next year's anticipated increase will be to drop package tiers, if not DirecTV entirely.

I fail to understand how anybody can feel that the extreme greed displayed by actors, actresses, writers, producers, programmers, cable companies, and satellite TV companies is even the slightest bit acceptable in these economic times. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my $48 per year increase go toward something that will benefit me, instead of going toward a new yacht or Ferrari that some Hollywood socialite's over-inflated ego says is necessary for them.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Jeremy W said:


> Nor should they. The spectrum that OTA TV stations are sitting on right now could be put to much better uses than providing a service that 90% of the country doesn't even bother with.


I remember years ago reading about a service in another country. The satellite company offered locals as a free service, with no other commitment required, but by having their equipment already set up, the customers were able to purchase programming from the satellite companies as well.

Personally, if affiliates are to remain around, I'd prefer them to create partnerships with the satcos and cablecos doing the above.

~Alan


----------



## brucegrr

Several thoughts from rural Ohio.......

OTA is not an option for some of us. I live half way between Ft Wayne and Toledo and neither provides satisfactory signal. Remember now that everything is digital.......no more snowy picture. It is all or nothing. I could invest a lot of $$$ in a tower, antenna rotator, etc

Competition? Not here. It is Directv, Dish or Time Warner. Time Warner offers 12 HD channels in this area, (yep that's it) So I have 2 options, Dish or Directv. Since we watch sports a lot Directv wins hands down.

I keep reading about Directv's costs going up. *Does anyone REALLY know that for a fact?* Has Directv's costs gone up over 1/2 billion dollars? I doubt it.

They increase fees because they can. Just like every other company does. Welcome to Capitalism. Time Warner raised my internet cost 3.00 last month.

Here in the dying manufacturing Midwest wages are static or in decline. 4.00 here, 3.00 there, coupled with increases across the board in basic living expenses has made keeping the typical middle class lifestyle more difficult. Is 4.00 going to break me? No. But the increases are reaching a critical mass........and may reach a place where I say *no more*.


----------



## Hoosier205

Pay more for less...D12 had better pay off.


----------



## BattleScott

Satelliteracer said:


> No offense taken, but the practical matter of the situation is that programming costs are rising FASTER and HIGHER than what D* and other MSO's are increasing rates by. Of course when MSO's try to fight back and refuse the price increases (i.e. Versus, etc) then customers get upset. That's a tough spot.
> 
> You say that prices should settle, but they aren't. The cost of content is higher and higher every year and they are built into the contracts as well. As an example, HBO's new series The Pacific cost about $200 million to make, most ever for a mini-series. The rights for sports are huge, thus ESPN charges MSOs more and more each year. And on and on. There hasn't been any "settling of prices" in the industry, quite the contrary. And like any business, when your costs go up (in this case the price of programming), then your prices go up to cover those costs. This is also why it's not just D*, but E*, TWC, Comcast, Telcos, etc. All MSO's are dealing with the same programmers and costs are going up for everyone.


Just curious as to your thoughts as an "insider" of how significant a role the churn rate and the costs of aquiring new subscribers (hardware expenses and promotional rates) play in these annual rate hikes?


----------



## Movieman

DirecTV3049 said:


> I'd like to point out a couple of things that have not been mentioned in this thread to this point:
> 
> 1. It may seem counter-intuitive to raise prices in a recession (albeit one that technically ended), but not all markets are equal. When the price of butter goes up; the sales of butter alternatives goes up. The same with entertainment. I'd guess that since retail sales are down; restaurant sales too, etc. . . . People haven't STOPPED wanting to be entertained; instead, most have just switched to a "substitute" form of entertainment. * I'd wager that more people are staying home and finding their entertainment there. If you find yourself staying home and plopping in front of the TV, then you're consuming more hours of television (i.e., demanding more). As such, even though there is an overall economic downturn, the demand for entertainment - *especially home entertainment - has skyrocketed.
> 
> 5. Yep, everyone has a price point. Haven't reached mine yet. Cable isn't available in my corner of the subdivision and, according to Charter, probably never will be. I can go Dish or go without entirely. There was an interesting article in the New York Time's recently about a family that totally cut the cord on cable/satellite television. *They were using the internet to provide them with their programming: Hulu, Netflix, YouTube. Saving a bundle every month (compared to what they used to spend), but - as the article noted - it required them to change HOW they watched television*. Put differently: you're not going to have the neighbors over anytime soon to watch New Year's bowl games or the Superbowl with their set-up. But, the choice is there.


To your first highlight i think they are starting to call theses staycations.  To the second highlight (if its off topic I will gladly start a new thread) but I would love to be able to do this just to have it. My tv isnt able to receiver a signal via ethernet. Both my tv's do have VGA options but are very far away from the PC/laptop to be able to pull this off. Without a STB and something like Playon/Tversity how can you pull this off?

I for one agree, just like they have the rights to raise rates we have the right not to subscribe. Eventually breaking points will be reached and people will cancel and all media content providers will have to adjust prices. Its like the gas price hike. There is a breaking point for every industry.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Satelliteracer said:


> Programming content contracts change each year. When all of their rates go up each year for ESPN, HBO, AMC, CBS, etc, etc, then the distributors need to pass on those costs. Programming is very expensive.


I don't believe a la carte is the answer to people's prayers regarding the above issue, but the problem is, I have Total Choice Plus + DVR Fee + HD Access + HD Extra + ABC, CBS, PBS, & CW DNS, and I only watch about 20+ channels. Add in five receivers, and I'll soon be paying $110+ to watch those 20+ channels.

As with the start of every new year, and every satellite launch (GO DirecTV 12!!!), I'm hopeful of the possibility for DirecTV to offer my local channels, in which case, I will end up saving money by the dropping of DNS channels.

But that being said, when I started with DirecTV in 1995, I got every channel I wanted for $30+. Since that time, I've gained maybe 6-12 channels that I watch... less if you count the fact that I used to receive the Encore channels in the package. Occasionally, we might subscribe to the premiums, or at least one or two for a year at a time, then drop them for a while, but now I simply can't justify the added cost of adding a single premium, much less all of them.

I used to like having a ton of channels... regardless of whether or not I watched them.... just in case, but with the creation of DVRs, and the amount of TV programming available on Blu-ray/DVD, I find it harder to justify even some of the non-premium channels.

I'm not blaming DirecTV, but a couple more years of price increases, and I may just say goodbye to "live" TV.

~Alan


----------



## pfp

DirecTV3049 said:


> 1. It may seem counter-intuitive to raise prices in a recession (albeit one that technically ended), but not all markets are equal. When the price of butter goes up; the sales of butter alternatives goes up. The same with entertainment. I'd guess that since retail sales are down; restaurant sales too, etc. . . . People haven't STOPPED wanting to be entertained; instead, most have just switched to a "substitute" form of entertainment. I'd wager that more people are staying home and finding their entertainment there. If you find yourself staying home and plopping in front of the TV, then you're consuming more hours of television (i.e., demanding more). As such, even though there is an overall economic downturn, the demand for entertainment - especially home entertainment - has skyrocketed.


Unlike restaurants, movies, etc the amount of TV I watch has no bearing on the cost of the TV service. It costs me $ per month if I watch none or watch it 24/7.

At the same time if more people are watching more TV then ratings should go up and networks can then charge more for ads.


----------



## Shades228

NOVA_Guy said:


> My response to a $4 increase will be to give them $10 less of my money, resulting in a net loss of $6 per month to them. I'm going to get rid of 2 receivers I have that I don't really need, and just network a feed from one of my other 3 boxes over to the affected TVs.
> 
> My planned response for next year's anticipated increase will be to drop package tiers, if not DirecTV entirely.
> 
> I fail to understand how anybody can feel that the extreme greed displayed by actors, actresses, writers, producers, programmers, cable companies, and satellite TV companies is even the slightest bit acceptable in these economic times. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my $48 per year increase go toward something that will benefit me, instead of going toward a new yacht or Ferrari that some Hollywood socialite's over-inflated ego says is necessary for them.


Why would you be paying $10 a month for something you didn't need to being with if it was that much of an issue? I'm sure they would prefer you save the $6 so that you're happy with the price you're paying rather than lose the whole account. Good to see you found a way to save some money though.


----------



## anleva

Satelliteracer said:


> Programming content contracts change each year. When all of their rates go up each year for ESPN, HBO, AMC, CBS, etc, etc, then the distributors need to pass on those costs. Programming is very expensive.


Two thoughts:

1) Your comments suggest this is a zero sum game for DirecTV. That they are just passing on the minimum rate hike that just offsets the increased programming costs. Is this what you are suggesting? That this is just a straight pass through? If so then their 1.5B in profits should stay about the same next fiscal year.

2) All businesses face increased costs. They still have a choice on how they deal with it based on market dynamics. DirecTV's response seems to be just to pass on the costs (and then some?) through annual rate hikes. They could also do other things to reduce their overall cost structure so increased programming costs would not effect our rates as much.

I'm sorry, I'm just not buying the spin that DirecTV is a innocent victim in all of this just like their customers. That the only bad guys are the content programmers.


----------



## NOVA_Guy

Shades228 said:


> Why would you be paying $10 a month for something you didn't need to being with if it was that much of an issue? I'm sure they would prefer you save the $6 so that you're happy with the price you're paying rather than lose the whole account. Good to see you found a way to save some money though.


I was using the two extra receivers on two TVs in spare bedrooms that I don't spend a lot of time in. This price increase simply led me to decide that it really wasn't worth the cost, being that I can hide an HTPC in the closet along a shared wall between the rooms, and just stream Netflix, etc. to them. Better yet, I might have just found a use for the HDHomerun that I had back when I subscribed to cable TV. I'm still using Comcast for an Internet connection, and the last time I checked I was still able to receive the basic tier channels through them (they obviously haven't done anything to filter my Internet connection). If I can still receive those channels, it's just a matter of setting up the appropriate channel mapping to match the lineup on my D* receivers.

I'm still not happy about the price increase, and still think that it is simply due to greed-- whether it be on DirecTV's part, others' parts, or a combination thereof. DirecTV should be ashamed of themselves for raising prices now.


----------



## Shades228

anleva said:


> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1) Your comments suggest this is a zero sum game for DirecTV. That they are just passing on the minimum rate hike that just offsets the increased programming costs. Is this what you are suggesting? That this is just a straight pass through? If so then their 1.5B in profits should stay about the same next fiscal year.
> 
> 2) All businesses face increased costs. They still have a choice on how they deal with it based on market dynamics. DirecTV's response seems to be just to pass on the costs (and then some?) through annual rate hikes. They could also do other things to reduce their overall cost structure so increased programming costs would not effect our rates as much.
> 
> I'm sorry, I'm just not buying the spin that DirecTV is a innocent victim in all of this just like their customers. That the only bad guys are the content programmers.


Profits would vary no matter what each year. There are too many things that go into this. Payroll, advertising, increase in subscribers, R&D, old new customer promotions falling off increasing their monthly bill.

However take note of the Family package. None of the channels Satellite Racer pointed out as examples are in it and it didn't go up in price either. They could have made it $30.99 if they just wanted to get more money. That said DirecTV is still a company and is still going to earn a profit so that means they will pass on costs just like everyone else does.


----------



## WebTraveler

SParker said:


> These companies and the increases when people are losing jobs, the economy is still crappy and for people on SSI not getting a COL increase. Yeesh.  We better get some new content.
> 
> I.E. BBCA HD and WGN HD.


Because Congress is in their back pockets. With the digital conversion pretty much everyone is locked into cable or satellite now. No more OTA unless you live in a flat plain OR spend for a good antenna. The whole mess is a crock. We used to have the option of free OTA....now we don't even have that as a real option anymore.


----------



## anleva

Shades228 said:


> Profits would vary no matter what each year. There are too many things that go into this. Payroll, advertising, increase in subscribers, R&D, old new customer promotions falling off increasing their monthly bill.
> 
> However take note of the Family package. None of the channels Satellite Racer pointed out as examples are in it and it didn't go up in price either. They could have made it $30.99 if they just wanted to get more money. That said DirecTV is still a company and is still going to earn a profit so that means they will pass on costs just like everyone else does.


So it's a zero sum game then for DirecTV? They are just increasing the rates the minimal amount necessary to offset the increased programming costs from content providers? Interesting take.


----------



## Alan Gordon

WebTraveler said:


> No more OTA unless you live in a flat plain OR spend for a good antenna. The whole mess is a crock. We used to have the option of free OTA....now we don't even have that as a real option anymore.


Depends on where you live!

I get better reception since the digital transition, more channels, and better PQ!

~Alan


----------



## pablo

Isn't this similar to what drove us into this recession in the first place? Greedy corporations wanting more and more profit each year, each quarter. If they made a million in profit the previous quarter, anything less or even the same the next quarter would be seen as negative. Only exponential profit would do.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that DIRECTV's raising rates is equal to the financial lunacy that got us into the most recent recession. DIRECTV service is not as critical as a roof over your head, and unless they employ you, you're not going to get laid off because of an ill-timed price increase. DIRECTV is a big company, but I don't see a domino effect if their price increases end up costing them revenue.


----------



## hilmar2k

This whole thread is giving me a severe case of deja vu.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=116102&highlight=price+increase


----------



## DirecTV3049

> To your first highlight i think they are starting to call theses staycations.


Unfortunately, the wife and child don't seem to be as thrilled with a staycation as a vacation. ;-)



> To the second highlight (if its off topic I will gladly start a new thread) but I would love to be able to do this just to have it. My tv isnt able to receiver a signal via ethernet. Both my tv's do have VGA options but are very far away from the PC/laptop to be able to pull this off. Without a STB and something like Playon/Tversity how can you pull this off?


Here's a link to the NYT's story I mentioned: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/technology/personaltech/10basics.html?em

As part of my d-i-y basement finishing, I ran ethernet to several spots in the basement and to the first floor (my house is a ranch with a basement) before I drywalled the basement ceiling.

My internet connection is nothing special: dry loop DSL 1.5MB down. I run that to my router. I run an ethernet line from my router (on the main floor) to the basement television area. There (in the basement) I hooked up an older laptop running Windows XP. The laptop is hooked into my 46" Westinghouse 1080p monitor via VGA. I use this set up to watch Netflix streaming movies in the basement. The resulting picture is "ok" - something like VHS quality. The sound only comes from the laptop's speakers, so that sucks (no surround sound), but for $8.99 unlimited movies . . . it's not bad.

We also have an Xbox 360 on the main floor connected to a 32" Westinghouse monitor. And, with an Xbox Live Gold membership ($50 per year) we could stream Netflix to the 32" Westy via the Xbox 360 over wi-fi. The wife got me a 3 month Gold membership for Xmas and I'm going to see how it works out.


----------



## Jeremy W

Alan Gordon said:


> I remember years ago reading about a service in another country. The satellite company offered locals as a free service, with no other commitment required, but by having their equipment already set up, the customers were able to purchase programming from the satellite companies as well.


I would have no problem with this arrangement.


----------



## DirecTV3049

> Unlike restaurants, movies, etc the amount of TV I watch has no bearing on the cost of the TV service. It costs me $ per month if I watch none or watch it 24/7.


Yes? And???

It's a very simple equation: when people demand more of something, you can charge more for that something. Even if it doesn't cost you more for supplying that thing.


----------



## raott

Shades228 said:


> That said DirecTV is still a company and is still going to earn a profit so that means they will pass on costs just like everyone else does.


Not how pricing works. Costs are not "passed on" and profit percentage added on top. The packages are priced at a point the pricing department believes will maximize revenue, no more, no less.


----------



## Doug Brott

raott said:


> Not how pricing works. Costs are not "passed on" and profit percentage added on top. The packages are priced at a point the pricing department believes will maximize revenue, no more, no less.


This is a technicality and not really the point here .. Clearly if costs go up profit is no longer maximized because if you really think about it I suspect there is a much higher price point that many (not all) people are willing to go to.

Yes, there will come a point where the cost simply is too high and it doesn't matter .. but since everyone else is also raising prices .. up they go. I don't like it either, BTW I've cut back on service over past few years and may continue to do so to mitigate the price changes.

However .. higher programming fees .. higher costs to DIRECTV == higher cost to us. So in that sense .. yes, the costs are passed on.


----------



## ThomasM

Shades228 said:


> However take note of the Family package. None of the channels Satellite Racer pointed out as examples are in it and it didn't go up in price either. They could have made it $30.99 if they just wanted to get more money. That said DirecTV is still a company and is still going to earn a profit so that means they will pass on costs just like everyone else does.


The Family Package is a bunch of crap channels that aren't worth $10 a month much less $30. The only reason it's around is for those glossy ads that compete with DISH network's cheapie package (that costs $19.99).

I had the Family Package for awhile, and it is basically worthless unless you want something to entertain YOUNG children or you like children's shows or shopping channels yourself. They even took the few worthwhile adult channels out of it (Science Channel, 101 network, etc.).


----------



## mountainDBS

What happend to a bill that was suppose to allow you to pick and choose the channels you are willing to pay for? I would love to know what the programmers charge for each channel. Then I will pick the channels off the on screen guide, program them in and send D* a bill for what I AM going to pay.


----------



## Shades228

anleva said:


> So it's a zero sum game then for DirecTV? They are just increasing the rates the minimal amount necessary to offset the increased programming costs from content providers? Interesting take.


I would never say they do a $0 sum but I would say they probably made pennies per account, which does add up fast, where as some people are saying that it's all profit.


----------



## Shades228

ThomasM said:


> The Family Package is a bunch of crap channels that aren't worth $10 a month much less $30. The only reason it's around is for those glossy ads that compete with DISH network's cheapie package (that costs $19.99).
> 
> I had the Family Package for awhile, and it is basically worthless unless you want something to entertain YOUNG children or you like children's shows or shopping channels yourself. They even took the few worthwhile adult channels out of it (Science Channel, 101 network, etc.).


Some people love those channels. Others find no value it's up to each person. However the point was they could have easily raised that a dollar and they didn't.


----------



## Doug Brott

mountainDBS said:


> What happend to a bill that was suppose to allow you to pick and choose the channels you are willing to pay for? I would love to know what the programmers charge for each channel. Then I will pick the channels off the on screen guide, program them in and send D* a bill for what I AM going to pay.


Bet you'd find that the bundled channel pricing (including the ones you don't want) are cheaper than just the few that you do want ... Ala Carte would only mean you'd pay more for less in the long run ..


----------



## pfp

Doug Brott said:


> Bet you'd find that the bundled channel pricing (including the ones you don't want) are cheaper than just the few that you do want ... Ala Carte would only mean you'd pay more for less in the long run ..


I keep hearing this argument but have yet to see proof.

Even if it were true, which I'm not willing to conceed it is, at least we wouldn't feel ripped off. There would be a clear choice - is channel X worth $1, 2, 5, 10 to me. If yes then I buy it, if no then I don't.


----------



## JJaret

When was the last price increase? March or April? They couldn"t wait a whole year.


----------



## Luck255

many different posters said:


> "These econimic times..."


I guess I just don't understand this but do most people make less than they did a few years ago? I make more or less the same as I have since 2005. I feel like consumers are just using that as a cop out for a reason to pay less for more or better services than they had been receiving. If the price of a service is more than you can afford DON'T USE IT. I wish I could valet my car everytime I go somewhere that has that service but I dont because it costs money that I'd rather spend on something else. Most people that are so adamant that a price increase is morally wrong come off to me sounding like they don't understand that television is a premium.


----------



## anleva

Doug Brott said:


> This is a technicality and not really the point here .. Clearly if costs go up profit is no longer maximized because if you really think about it I suspect there is a much higher price point that many (not all) people are willing to go to.
> 
> Yes, there will come a point where the cost simply is too high and it doesn't matter .. but since everyone else is also raising prices .. up they go. I don't like it either, BTW I've cut back on service over past few years and may continue to do so to mitigate the price changes.
> 
> However .. higher programming fees .. higher costs to DIRECTV == higher cost to us. So in that sense .. *yes, the costs are passed on*.


And then some


----------



## Jeremy W

anleva said:


> And then some


Of course. DirecTV is a publically traded corporation, their goal is to make a profit. They're not a charity setup to deliver TV programming at-cost.


----------



## anleva

Jeremy W said:


> Of course. DirecTV is a publically traded corporation, their goal is to make a profit. They're not a charity setup to deliver TV programming at-cost.


Phew! Glad someone finally admitted it. I have no problem with that. However the underlying message throughout many of these posts, at least from the DirecTV apologists, is that DirecTV is a victim in all of this and is only passing the increased costs through to their subscribers. That the true villian is the the content providers and DirecTV is trying to keep subscribers bills down.

Of course the reality is that DirecTV is singularly focused on extracting maximum revenue from each and every subscriber (ARPU), to increase top line revenue and profits, to drive up stock price and generate fat bonuses for each of their executives. I just find it laughable to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Satelliteracer

anleva said:


> Phew! Glad someone finally admitted it. I have no problem with that. However the underlying message throughout many of these posts, at least from the DirecTV apologists, is that DirecTV is a victim in all of this and is only passing the increased costs through to their subscribers. That the true villian is the the content providers and DirecTV is trying to keep subscribers bills down.
> 
> Of course the reality is that DirecTV is singularly focused on extracting maximum revenue from each and every subscriber (ARPU), to increase top line revenue and profits, to drive up stock price and generate fat bonuses for each of their executives. I just find it laughable to suggest otherwise.


Sorry, that is not the singular focus of DIRECTV.


----------



## joshjr

pfp said:


> I keep hearing this argument but have yet to see proof.
> 
> Even if it were true, which I'm not willing to conceed it is, at least we wouldn't feel ripped off. There would be a clear choice - is channel X worth $1, 2, 5, 10 to me. If yes then I buy it, if no then I don't.


Its not really that hard to get. If you are D* and you are paying for some stations do you put it in a lower package and have most of your 18 million subs pay it equally or do you set it up to where people buy it individually? Think about it for a minute. If the contract says D* has to pay us X million dollars over the next 5 years is that better to distribute over almost all subs or just let a few that want that station pay for it? If not enough subbed to it then would D* just pick up the extra charges to brake even? I dont think so. Someone would have to pay it. The channels by themselves would have to be very very high or they would not pay for themselves.


----------



## Satelliteracer

anleva said:


> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1) Your comments suggest this is a zero sum game for DirecTV. That they are just passing on the minimum rate hike that just offsets the increased programming costs. Is this what you are suggesting? That this is just a straight pass through? If so then their 1.5B in profits should stay about the same next fiscal year.
> 
> 2) All businesses face increased costs. They still have a choice on how they deal with it based on market dynamics. DirecTV's response seems to be just to pass on the costs (and then some?) through annual rate hikes. They could also do other things to reduce their overall cost structure so increased programming costs would not effect our rates as much.
> 
> I'm sorry, I'm just not buying the spin that DirecTV is a innocent victim in all of this just like their customers. That the only bad guys are the content programmers.


If that was your interpretation, than I did a poor job of explaining.

Let me try again, several posters and posts in this thread suggested that costs shouldn't be going up, but should stabilize. I was explaining why that is most certainly NOT the case. Costs go up every year. Many of the programming contracts are multi year deals and were signed many years ago, without any sense we would be in a recession, etc. Even aside from that, programming costs continue to go up, whether they are older contracts or newer ones.

As I believe several of us stated, D* is a for profit company but they are also a company that has the best customer service in the industry (costs money), has been a key innovator (costs money), and continues to invest back into the business (costs money).


----------



## anleva

Satelliteracer said:


> Sorry, that is not the singular focus of DIRECTV.


Interesting. With the exceptions of bonuses seemed to be the main themes of Chase Carey in the FY08 Financial Report. Care to clue us in then on what it is?


----------



## Satelliteracer

There seem to be a lot of things going on that are built around customer service, customer satisfaction, technological innovation, etc. that are alternative focuses of the company.


----------



## roadrunner1782

Wow, these yearly rate increases spark so much controversy around here!


----------



## anleva

Satelliteracer said:


> If that was your interpretation, than I did a poor job of explaining.
> 
> Let me try again, several posters and posts in this thread suggested that costs shouldn't be going up, but should stabilize. I was explaining why that is most certainly NOT the case. Costs go up every year. Many of the programming contracts are multi year deals and were signed many years ago, without any sense we would be in a recession, etc. Even aside from that, programming costs continue to go up, whether they are older contracts or newer ones.
> 
> As I believe several of us stated, D* is a for profit company but they are also a company that has the best customer service in the industry (costs money), has been a key innovator (costs money), and continues to invest back into the business (costs money).


Thank you, I have no problem with that. They are behaving like most any other public corporation in determining what services they will provide at what price and with what cost structure. Sorry but the message I heard (not necessarily what you wished to communicate it sounds like) was that they are just passing through increased programming costs and that felt a bit disingenuous to me. DirecTV has alot of levers they can pull.


----------



## BKC

anleva said:


> Interesting. With the exceptions of bonuses seemed to be the main themes of Chase Carey in the FY08 Financial Report. Care to clue us in then on what it is?


Well they do have to come up with 10 million or so to sponsor a car in nascar...


----------



## anleva

Satelliteracer said:


> There seem to be a lot of things going on that are built around customer service, customer satisfaction, technological innovation, etc. that are alternative focuses of the company.


I'm curious about something. How does DirecTV currently position themselves in the market versus its competitors? At a time it was sports leadership (I think it still is), I've seen HD leadership (seems to be slipping). Probably not cost leadership. What does DTV think it's competitive advantages are moving forward?

Don't get me wrong. Coming from Comcast I have been extremely satisfied with DTV and plan on staying for a long while. I'm just curious.


----------



## Dolly

Satelliteracer said:


> There seem to be a lot of things going on that are built around customer service, customer satisfaction, technological innovation, etc. that are alternative focuses of the company.


Satelliteracer I hate to see you in such a difficult situation
 Since everyone knows you work for D* you are going to hear complaints about all price increases. And don't get me wrong I don't like price increases either, but for us we think D* is a very good company :heart: :goodjob: I know they aren't perfect, but what company is? We have been with them a long time and I can't see us leaving them :nono: If this gets me known as a Directv Fangirl that is fine because I am one :sunsmile: Now if Directv could do something about TV programming  And to those of you who mentioned using your DVR we have been using ours more than ever before. I wanted to add this to my post because it was all of you great posters here at DBS that talked me into HD TV and the DVR. So a great big thank you to everyone :new_smili


----------



## DCSholtis

Dolly said:


> Satelliteracer I hate to see you in such a difficult situation
> Since everyone knows you work for D* you are going to hear complaints about all price increases. And don't get me wrong I don't like price increases either, but for us we think D* is a very good company :heart: :goodjob: I know they aren't perfect, but what company is? We have been with them a long time and I can't see us leaving them :nono: If this gets me known as a Directv Fangirl that is fine because I am one :sunsmile: Now if Directv could do something about TV programming  And to those of you who mentioned using your DVR we have been using ours more than ever before. I wanted to add this to my post because it was all of you great posters here at DBS that talked me into HD TV and the DVR. So a great big thank you to everyone :new_smili


+1 (except the Fangirl part though. I'm a D* fanboy. )


----------



## Doug Brott

anleva said:


> Of course the reality is that DirecTV is singularly focused on extracting maximum revenue from each and every subscriber (ARPU), to increase top line revenue and profits, to drive up stock price and generate fat bonuses for each of their executives. I just find it laughable to suggest otherwise.


The way you say just sounds so bad .. If DIRECTV were big bad behemoth Corp sucking us dry, then they really wouldn't be around forever. They could jack up the price so high that many, many folks would start dropping the service even if it meant no TV at all. ultimately, that would of course lead to their downfall. The service still needs to be of value to enough customers or it won't work. Cost of material (content in this case) certainly plays a part, but there does come a point when you can't go higher or the business model simply won't work (I believe this is raott's point from earlier).

I doubt the executives are padding their wallets with this increase .. overall performance of the company is important and I think everyone would agree (even those executives) that price increases pretty much suck.


----------



## Davenlr

They just raised the price of my Cat litter from $2.39 to $3.99. Thats $1.60 a container, with 3 cats, thats two containers a week, or $12.80 per month. Thats TWICE the hike of DirecTv...Shame on TidyCat.


----------



## Satelliteracer

anleva said:


> I'm curious about something. How does DirecTV currently position themselves in the market versus its competitors? At a time it was sports leadership (I think it still is), I've seen HD leadership (seems to be slipping). Probably not cost leadership. What does DTV think it's competitive advantages are moving forward?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Coming from Comcast I have been extremely satisfied with DTV and plan on staying for a long while. I'm just curious.


Sports leader, not even close. More sports than anyone bar none.

HD innovator and leader (sure there are a couple of systems that are on par, but that will change in a few months again)...D* set the standard

D* is not the low cost leader, but rather the premier television service on the market. The best television experience in the land.

Some more great things coming in 2010...a ton of new HD channels in a number of genres (Premiums, base package channels, sports, etc), TiVo DVRs coming back, MRV, 3D Channel, a slew of new local channel markets, a few additional things to be mentioned later in the year that will also be well received.

No one likes price increases. D* has been able to keep them between 4% and 5% this year for most customers. This will not be the case for some other MSOs.


----------



## anleva

Doug Brott said:


> The way you say just sounds so bad .. If DIRECTV were big bad behemoth Corp sucking us dry, then they really wouldn't be around forever. They could jack up the price so high that many, many folks would start dropping the service even if it meant no TV at all. ultimately, that would of course lead to their downfall. The service still needs to be of value to enough customers or it won't work. Cost of material (content in this case) certainly plays a part, but there does come a point when you can't go higher or the business model simply won't work (I believe this is raott's point from earlier).
> 
> I doubt the executives are padding their wallets with this increase .. overall performance of the company is important and I think everyone would agree (even those executives) that price increases pretty much suck.


My comment was in the context of others positioning DirecTV as an altruistic, not for profit who is a victim of programming costs increases and begrudgingly is passing those costs on to their subscribers lest they go out of business due to those evil, greedy content providers. Yes, I exaggerated. Where's the emoticon for that? 

Maximizing ARPU does not mean jacking prices up to the highest number. It means charging what DTV believes the market will bear based on competitive market forces and value added services. DirecTV's operating strategy is to continue to add subscribers, minimize churn and to increase revenue per subscriber. Obviously they need to provide something of value to do all of those things. They do for me, that's why I switched to DTV.


----------



## mattpol

How come this story doesn't get linked to from the front page?


----------



## anleva

Satelliteracer said:


> Sports leader, not even close. More sports than anyone bar none.
> 
> HD innovator and leader (sure there are a couple of systems that are on par, but that will change in a few months again)...D* set the standard
> 
> D* is not the low cost leader, but rather the premier television service on the market. The best television experience in the land.
> 
> Some more great things coming in 2010...a ton of new HD channels in a number of genres (Premiums, base package channels, sports, etc), TiVo DVRs coming back, MRV, 3D Channel, a slew of new local channel markets, a few additional things to be mentioned later in the year that will also be well received.
> 
> No one likes price increases. D* has been able to keep them between 4% and 5% this year for most customers. This will not be the case for some other MSOs.


That's great to hear Satelliteracer! My original impetus for making the switch (which wasn't easy or cheap since it also required some infrastructure/ cabling investment on my part) was the fact that DirecTV had the best sports coverage bar none and best HD coverage. They also quickly added channels like the Big Ten network that companies like Comcast drug their feet on and when they did add it had an inferior implementation. I'm glad they are building on their strengths and am excited to see what else is coming out later in the year.


----------



## Smthkd

Satelliteracer said:


> Sports leader, not even close. More sports than anyone bar none.
> 
> HD innovator and leader (sure there are a couple of systems that are on par, but that will change in a few months again)...D* set the standard
> 
> D* is not the low cost leader, but rather the premier television service on the market. The best television experience in the land.
> 
> Some more great things coming in 2010...a ton of new HD channels in a number of genres (Premiums, base package channels, sports, etc), TiVo DVRs coming back, MRV, 3D Channel, a slew of new local channel markets, a few additional things to be mentioned later in the year that will also be well received.
> 
> No one likes price increases. D* has been able to keep them between 4% and 5% this year for most customers. This will not be the case for some other MSOs.


Well, I know I complained earlier but thats just normal response to any price increase. I love my service and must admit there is no other service out there like D* and Im happy I chose them. Thanks for all the update SatRacer your a reall asset to the site. BTW! I look forward to 2010's HD increase. D11 was just plan out disappointing on a National level.:nono2:


----------



## ATARI

Compared to big oil price fixing, D* price increases are just child's play.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Satelliteracer said:


> Some more great things coming in 2010...a ton of new HD channels in a number of genres (Premiums, base package channels, sports, etc), TiVo DVRs coming back, MRV, 3D Channel, a slew of new local channel markets, a few additional things to be mentioned later in the year that will also be well received.


SWEET!  Thanks Sat.

And nice to see you again Dolly. :wave:


----------



## Lord Vader

Doug Brott said:


> Bet you'd find that the bundled channel pricing (including the ones you don't want) are cheaper than just the few that you do want ... Ala Carte would only mean you'd pay more for less in the long run ..


Doug, I used to be a BIG proponent of _a la carte_ programming, but when I did research and a lot of reading, I realized that _a la carte_ programming and pricing would be a huge mistake for consumers and a BIG moneymaker for providers. People who think that the costs would be less because we got to pick and choose what we want and consequently pay for only what we want are fooling themselves. The sum of the parts in the case of _a la carte_ is greater than the whole.

_A la carte_ programming and pricing would be significantly more expensive for a customer. Because of this, I am against it and hope it does not become a reality (which means I do not want Congress to step in and mandate it).


----------



## CJTE

Lord Vader said:


> People who think that the costs would be less because we got to pick and choose what we want and consequently pay for only what we want are fooling themselves. The sum of the parts in the case of _a la carte_ is greater than the whole.
> 
> _A la carte_ programming and pricing would be significantly more expensive for a customer. Because of this, I am against it and hope it does not become a reality (which means I do not want Congress to step in and mandate it).


It's all about choices and perspective.
For a lot of people, the current bundled packages work 'well enough'.

If I could build a package with whatever showtime feed carries Dexter/Weeds/Californication, USA, TNT, my local network affiliates, and maybe Discovery... I'd pay $25-$35 Just for those channels (That's about $3.50/channel at least if they were all priced equally).
I've "survived" without showtime for about 2 years now. Aside of House M.D./Bones being on Fox, and The Mentalist being on CBS, everything I watch is on USA.
I just checked current programming on ABC and NBC. Nothing looks interesting to me. I like watching movies from time to time on TNT too.

It's nice to have things like the Discovery channel, and the aforementioned showtime, but I could definitely get by with only USA, (then Fox, then CBS) if it was a choice I could make. (If only USA was in the family package... I could drop the to-be legacy Plus HD/DVR package :lol


----------



## BKC

Lord Vader said:


> Doug, I used to be a BIG proponent of _a la carte_ programming, but when I did research and a lot of reading, I realized that _a la carte_ programming and pricing would be a huge mistake for consumers and a BIG moneymaker for providers. People who think that the costs would be less because we got to pick and choose what we want and consequently pay for only what we want are fooling themselves. The sum of the parts in the case of _a la carte_ is greater than the whole.
> 
> _A la carte_ programming and pricing would be significantly more expensive for a customer. Because of this, I am against it and hope it does not become a reality (which means I do not want Congress to step in and mandate it).


Why are you so against it? It's not like the packages that are available now wouldn't still be there. Some people would like to just buy a few channels, we don't live in front of the TV.


----------



## pablo

riprecked said:


> Other services and their new prices: DIRECTV® DVR Service fee $7.00/mo.; *RussianDirect II $39.99/mo*.


Although this won't affect very many people, looks like with all the packages increasing in price, at least one is actually going down. Currently, RussianDirect II is $45.99.


----------



## joed32

pfp said:


> I keep hearing this argument but have yet to see proof.
> 
> Even if it were true, which I'm not willing to conceed it is, at least we wouldn't feel ripped off. There would be a clear choice - is channel X worth $1, 2, 5, 10 to me. If yes then I buy it, if no then I don't.


A lot of us had ala carte with our C-band dishes so we could buy any channel we wanted. I think at that time the History channel was a dollar (about 15 yrs ago). When you started adding the channels you wanted it was always higher than a package that included those channels.


----------



## dodge boy

Lord Vader said:


> Doug, I used to be a BIG proponent of _a la carte_ programming, but when I did research and a lot of reading, I realized that _a la carte_ programming and pricing would be a huge mistake for consumers and a BIG moneymaker for providers. People who think that the costs would be less because we got to pick and choose what we want and consequently pay for only what we want are fooling themselves. The sum of the parts in the case of _a la carte_ is greater than the whole.
> 
> _A la carte_ programming and pricing would be significantly more expensive for a customer. Because of this, I am against it and hope it does not become a reality (which means I do not want Congress to step in and mandate it).


It should be made available to those that want to pick 1 or 2 channels and not hole packs... I could get by just fine with all of the ESPNs, Link TV, Big Ten, NFL network, and FX and my locals.


----------



## Doug Brott

Lord Vader said:


> Doug, I used to be a BIG proponent of _a la carte_ programming, but when I did research and a lot of reading, I realized that _a la carte_ programming and pricing would be a huge mistake for consumers and a BIG moneymaker for providers. People who think that the costs would be less because we got to pick and choose what we want and consequently pay for only what we want are fooling themselves. The sum of the parts in the case of _a la carte_ is greater than the whole.
> 
> _A la carte_ programming and pricing would be significantly more expensive for a customer. Because of this, I am against it and hope it does not become a reality (which means I do not want Congress to step in and mandate it).





CJTE said:


> I'd pay $25-$35 Just for those channels (That's about $3.50/channel at least if they were all priced equally).
> I've "survived" without showtime for about 2 years now. Aside of House M.D./Bones being on Fox, and The Mentalist being on CBS, everything I watch is on USA.
> I just checked current programming on ABC and NBC. Nothing looks interesting to me. I like watching movies from time to time on TNT too.





BKC said:


> Why are you so against it? It's not like the packages that are available now wouldn't still be there. Some people would like to just buy a few channels, we don't live in front of the TV.





dodge boy said:


> It should be made available to those that want to pick 1 or 2 channels and not hole packs... I could get by just fine with all of the ESPNs, Link TV, Big Ten, NFL network, and FX and my locals.


Folks, the simple answer is .. If everyone but you were to keep a bundle then it would definitely make sense to have a la carte programming because there would be enough people to support every channel that we now have. But of course it's silly to allow just one person a la carte but not everyone.

Forget for a moment the added cost of maintaining a system that could have each customer with an entirely different set of channels. Folks would snap up the channels that they like .. The more popular channels would of course have enough takers to stay in business while the less popular (or fringe) channels would fold simply because the cost of doing business is greater than the revenue received .. fewer eyeballs for ads, fewer funds from redistribution fees .. So this "choice" you speak of starts to shrink. At the end of the day we'd end up with the big guys only.

Here's where the fun starts .. Now the big guys start jacking up the rates because they can .. Most would be willing to pay because the alternative is no TV (some could switch to free OTA only). So where does that leave us?

When it's all said and done, a la carte leaves us with fewer choices (not more) and almost certainly the same price .. remember the cost is what the market will bear .. If it was $70/sub before a la carte .. It will still be $70/sub after a la carte. So you say, OK, I'll cut back on another channel .. and another .. that's my point. Less choice is the result of going a la carte.

The fact is, we have to live with bundling because it gives all of us the best of what we all want. It is the best way even at these prices. A la carte is NOT the way to go.


----------



## BKC

Doug Brott said:


> Folks, the simple answer is .. If everyone but you were to keep a bundle then it would definitely make sense to have a la carte programming because there would be enough people to support every channel that we now have. But of course it's silly to allow just one person a la carte but not everyone.
> 
> Forget for a moment the added cost of maintaining a system that could have each customer with an entirely different set of channels. Folks would snap up the channels that they like .. The more popular channels would of course have enough takers to stay in business while the less popular (or fringe) channels would fold simply because the cost of doing business is greater than the revenue received .. fewer eyeballs for ads, fewer funds from redistribution fees .. So this "choice" you speak of starts to shrink. At the end of the day we'd end up with the big guys only.
> 
> Here's where the fun starts .. Now the big guys start jacking up the rates because they can .. Most would be willing to pay because the alternative is no TV (some could switch to free OTA only). So where does that leave us?
> 
> When it's all said and done, a la carte leaves us with fewer choices (not more) and almost certainly the same price .. remember the cost is what the market will bear .. If it was $70/sub before a la carte .. It will still be $70/sub after a la carte. So you say, OK, I'll cut back on another channel .. and another .. that's my point. Less choice is the result of going a la carte.
> 
> The fact is, we have to live with bundling because it gives all of us the best of what we all want. It is the best way even at these prices. A la carte is NOT the way to go.


You forgot to put "In your opinion" You act as though what you posted is fact.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

It seems to me that one can never be factual when dealing with the hypothetical. That being said, Mr. Brott's statements seem the most likely course of events should a la carte become the norm.

My comment regarding a la carte is the same: it seems to me many people who complain that they want a la carte programming are the same people who complain of multiple "nickel and dime" line items on their bills. I find it impossible to hold both those points of view and wonder how those people do it.


----------



## Grentz

BKC said:


> You forgot to put "In your opinion" You act as though what you posted is fact.


Educated Hypothesis is more what I would call it


----------



## BKC

Stuart Sweet said:


> It seems to me that one can never be factual when dealing with the hypothetical. That being said, Mr. Brott's statements seem the most likely course of events should a la carte become the norm.


Now there is only one way to find out for sure..... :lol:


----------



## jzoomer

I would be interested in whether the per user revenue falls with this increase.

As the prices go up, I have made choices to reduce my costs. Last year I dumped all premiums and eliminated a receiver. I am eyeing the local channels since I can get those OTA and can record them on my media servers.

It seems like the wrong move in these financial times.


----------



## Grentz

jzoomer said:


> I would be interested in whether the per user revenue falls with this increase.
> 
> As the prices go up, I have made choices to reduce my costs. Last year I dumped all premiums and eliminated a receiver. I am eyeing the local channels since I can get those OTA and can record them on my media servers.
> 
> It seems like the wrong move in these financial times.


It might not totally be about that though.

Yes DirecTV makes less gross revenue, but the point of the increases is to cover rising costs from networks as well. Which if you sub to lower packages, you are incurring less network costs.


----------



## pfp

Doug Brott said:


> A la carte is NOT the way to go.


I respect your opinion as I hope you respect mine.

I have no doubt that channels would disappear - Do we really need to be able to watch reruns of Law and Order (I love this show BTW) on one of 15 different channels at any hour of the day? Channels that provide fringe content will have a relatively high price and people who wish to watch those channels will have to decide if it's worth the price. If enough people deem it worthy it will survive.

I'd argue that by having to earn paying viewers channels will actually strive to create content people are willing to pay for instead of regurgitating garbage relying on the fact that they are in xxx million home because of being in some bundled programming.

If we are going to be so against a la carte why should all the foreign language channels be in separate packages? What about HBO, Showtimes, etc - whay are they a la carte?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

May I suggest this excellent article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum


----------



## pfp

Stuart Sweet said:


> May I suggest this excellent article?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum


Nice article, but how is it relavent.


----------



## pablo

Not sure how this got diverted to a la carte, but I personally wouldn't make use of it, if such an option existed. However, I don't understand one aspect that's always brought up as a case against a la carte: lesser-known and lesser-popular channels would suffer and go out of business, because nobody would select them, or very few people, and so nobody will see the ads they air. But here's what I don't get. Right now, as a Premiere subscriber I get every channel, but of course I don't watch every channel I get. So some (many, actually) channels never get watched by me at all right now, without a la carte. I may surf by them when I'm bored and have nothing better to do, but I never stay around for too long, and never during commercials.


----------



## DogLover

pablo said:


> Not sure how this got diverted to a la carte, but I personally wouldn't make use of it, if such an option existed. However, I don't understand one aspect that's always brought up as a case against a la carte: lesser-known and lesser-popular channels would suffer and go out of business, because nobody would select them, or very few people, and so nobody will see the ads they air. But here's what I don't get. Right now, as a Premiere subscriber I get every channel, but of course I don't watch every channel I get. So some (many, actually) channels never get watched by me at all right now, without a la carte. I may surf by them when I'm bored and have nothing better to do, but I never stay around for too long, and never during commercials.


They don't get your eyes, so they don't get as much ad revenue. However, those channels do get a subscriber fee just for you having the ability to watch their channel. (And possibly the fee is set for group of channels offered by the same company, so it gets a portion of a larger group fee.)

The more people that are subscribed, the more likely it is that someone is going to cruise by there during a commercial, and stay and watch their content, which would increase their ad revenue.

I think that it is inevitable that there would be fewer subscribers if there were ala carte pricing. Therefore, they either raise the "per suscriber" fee, get less subscriber fee revenue overall, or most likely both. With fewer subscribers, there is less chance of increasing their viewership. After all, someone has to be interested enough to subscribe, not just chance by their channel and start watching. Less increase in viewership, less increase in ad revenue.


----------



## xtc

ddockery said:


> I can't explain why, but I wanrt to stay w/ DirecTV, but their pricing is really making me rethink that logic. AT this point the only real hurdle is that I can't watch the stuff on my DVR if I switch away from them.


Yes you can. If you own your equipment, you will be able to view everything saved on your DVR even if you are no longer a subscriber. Even if you don't own it, you can always just by a DVD Recorder and record all your stuff to DVD-Rs and then return it. Places like Target let you keep it for 90 days. Costco will let you keep it as long as you want if you have a reciept. If you don't own your equipment, I am sure you have plenty of time to record all your stuff until you have to return it.


----------



## Grentz

The other thing to remember is that people think they want quantity over quality. People want to see "hundreds of channels" in their guide even if they only watch a few of them.

Heck, I probably watch at most 20 channels regularly on DirecTV. I would much rather have 20 quality channels than hundreds of ok ones. But the masses don't think like that.


----------



## joshjr

pfp said:



> I respect your opinion as I hope you respect mine.
> 
> I have no doubt that channels would disappear - Do we really need to be able to watch reruns of Law and Order (I love this show BTW) on one of 15 different channels at any hour of the day? Channels that provide fringe content will have a relatively high price and people who wish to watch those channels will have to decide if it's worth the price. If enough people deem it worthy it will survive.
> 
> I'd argue that by having to earn paying viewers channels will actually strive to create content people are willing to pay for instead of regurgitating garbage relying on the fact that they are in xxx million home because of being in some bundled programming.
> 
> If we are going to be so against a la carte why should all the foreign language channels be in separate packages? What about HBO, Showtimes, etc - whay are they a la carte?


I can already see the next complaint if that was to happen. Why is the Travel Channel more expensive then ESPN? I dont like sports programming so it should be cheaper. There is no win with that format. Someone will complain just like they do now. I am a big sports fan but do not spend time watching Travel channel, Discovery, National Geographic, Home and Garden, etc and am not fond of paying for them either but others do and it keeps the costs down. Like I said before if it costs X for a contract for X amount of years is it better to spread that over more people to share the cost or less? If its less people then its a no brainer that the costs have to be significantly higher. There really is not a good way to calculate that either. How are they gonna guess how many people will sub to a specific channel if each channel were for sale?


----------



## joshjr

joshjr said:


> I can already see the next complaint if that was to happen. Why is the Travel Channel more expensive then ESPN? I dont like sports programming so it should be cheaper. There is no win with that format. Someone will complain just like they do now. I am a big sports fan but do not spend time watching Travel channel, Discovery, National Geographic, Home and Garden, etc and am not fond of paying for them either but others do and it keeps the costs down. Like I said before if it costs X for a contract for X amount of years is it better to spread that over more people to share the cost or less? If its less people then its a no brainer that the costs have to be significantly higher. There really is not a good way to calculate that either. How are they gonna guess how many people will sub to a specific channel if each channel were for sale?


Also how much of a price increase do you think you would see yearly per channel if it was set up this way? Probably not something you would be that happy with. What if each channel went up $1 a year. Even with just 20 channels that would be $20 a year. Is that still better then the $4 a year from D* with a package deal and alot more channels? Which one would get out of hand faster? No one knows for sure but I will say that buying channels seperatelly would probably get way out of hand much much faster.


----------



## pfp

joshjr said:


> I can already see the next complaint if that was to happen. Why is the Travel Channel more expensive then ESPN? I dont like sports programming so it should be cheaper. There is no win with that format. Someone will complain just like they do now. I am a big sports fan but do not spend time watching Travel channel, Discovery, National Geographic, Home and Garden, etc and am not fond of paying for them either but others do and it keeps the costs down. Like I said before if it costs X for a contract for X amount of years is it better to spread that over more people to share the cost or less? If its less people then its a no brainer that the costs have to be significantly higher. There really is not a good way to calculate that either. How are they gonna guess how many people will sub to a specific channel if each channel were for sale?


Agreed, and those that want the channel and find the price acceptable will subscribe. Nobody is forcing you to pay, in some part, for HBO, Showtime, Polish programming etc in your base package are they? Why should we be forced into paying for ESPN, USA, Discovery, Travel, etc?


----------



## joshjr

pfp said:


> Agreed, and those that want the channel and find the price acceptable will subscribe. Nobody is forcing you to pay, in some part, for HBO, Showtime, Polish programming etc in your base package are they? Why should we be forced into paying for ESPN, USA, Discovery, Travel, etc?


Movie channels show movies 24 hours a day. The sports channels show very little live content really. Most of that is on the big 4 networks. I love sports but dont sup to the sports pack as it shows very little sports except for the one RSN feed I get. With the movie channels you are not restricted.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Does this mean DIRECTV can now afford Versus? Maybe they could use some of the extra $4 million they'll be banking (each month) due to this rate increase..


----------



## Mark Holtz

Hmmm..... how about this.... instead of ala carte, how about package programming. This is something I dreamed up.

*DirecTV Basic* (required) - CSPAN 1, CSPAN 2, Gems, HSN, ion, Jewelry, QVC, ShopNBC, RFD, TV Guide, USA, and your locals.

*DirecTV Entertainment* - Ovation, SyFy, GSN, G4, Comedy Central, Chiller, Bravo, BBC America, A&E, TBS, TVLand, TVOne, TruTV, WGN, FX

*DirecTV Women* - Lifetime, Lifetime Movie, Oxygen, Style, WE

*DirecTV Sports* - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, Big 10, Fuel, Golf, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, Speed, Tennis, Sportsman, Verses, and your Regional Sports Network

*DirecTV Movies* - AMC, Fox Movie, HD Theater, Hallmark, IFC, Lifetime Movie, ReelzChannel, TCM

*DirecTV Family* - ABC Family, Animal Planet, Boomerang, Cartoon Network, Discovery Kids, Disney, Disney XD, Nickelodeon, Nicktoions, PBS Kids, Science, TeenNick,

*DirecTV News* - Bloomberg, CNBC, CNBC World, CNN, Current TV, ESPN News, Fox Business, Fox News, Headline News, Investigational Discovery, MSNBC, Weather,

*DirecTV Music* - CMT, Fuse, Great American Country, MTV, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, World Harvest,

*DirecTV Religion* - BYU TV, CTN, Church, Daystar, EWTN, God, Gospel, Hope, INSP, Jewish Life, Link, NRB, TCT, The Word, TBN,

*DirecTV Life* - DIY, Discovery Health, Fine Living, Food, Home and Garden, Style, Biography, TLC,

*DirecTV Earth* - Discovery, Fox Reality, History, History International, Planet Green, Science, Military, Travel

Hmmm... I think I will take DirecTV Basic, DirecTV Entertainment, DirecTV Movies, DirecTV News, and DirecTV Earth. No, not interested in DirecTV Sports.

Don't think that's possible? Take a look at what is offered to hotels by DirecTV.


----------



## joekun

I was about to cancel after last year's price increase, but free HD access fee for a year plus $10 off my monthly statement kept me from doing so. But that will be over in March and I just ordered a nice OTA antenna. I'll probably build a MythTv box and just do the free TV thing. Most of the content I watch is either free OTA or available on the internet (in lower quality, but you can't beat the price). And ESPN 360 has me covered for almost all the sports I need. 

With these new increases I would be looking at about $75/month for ONE box (HD-DVR + Total Choice + HD service). I started out paying $37.99 for my one box and using my ReplayTV with no service fees, but now you can't even use a non-D* DVR so they get you from every angle.

Goodbye D*, and good riddance! Two months without paying you will pay for my antenna and the TV tuner to turn my old PC into a nice powerful DVR.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

That's not a bad group, although I couldn't tell you item by item which channels pay DIRECTV for carriage (and therefore need to be in the basic category.) 

It's very possible there will be something like that in the future, but I suspect there will also be groupings like today and they'll probably be more popular.


----------



## BKC

I don't think anyone is suggesting the packages go away, just an a la carte option added. Myself I could easily get by with 10 channels and that would include three DNS. Go ahead and charge the hell out of me for them, it would probably still be way less than I'm paying now. As a side note, they don't mind charging the hell out of me for those three DNS now :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I can see various angles to all this...

I suspect al la carte isn't going to happen....but...perhaps different channel packaging may surface once the D12 satellite is active and a number of new national HD channels are activated.


----------



## pfp

Mark Holtz said:


> Hmmm..... how about this.... instead of ala carte, how about package programming. This is something I dreamed up.


Definitely an improvement.


----------



## pfp

BKC said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting the packages go away, just an a la carte option added. Myself I could easily get by with 10 channels and that would include three DNS. Go ahead and charge the hell out of me for them, it would probably still be way less than I'm paying now. As a side note, they don't mind charging the hell out of me for those three DNS now :lol:


Same here - USA, TNT, Comedy Central, and perhaps Syfy and I'm done. They could charge $10 each and I'd still be better off than I am now.


----------



## joshjr

Mark Holtz said:


> Hmmm..... how about this.... instead of ala carte, how about package programming. This is something I dreamed up.
> 
> *DirecTV Sports* - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, Big 10, Fuel, Golf, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, Speed, Tennis, Sportsman, Verses, and your Regional Sports Network
> 
> *DirecTV News* - Bloomberg, CNBC, CNBC World, CNN, Current TV, *ESPN News*, Fox Business, Fox News, Headline News, Investigational Discovery, MSNBC, Weather,
> 
> Hmmm... I think I will take DirecTV Basic, DirecTV Entertainment, DirecTV Movies, DirecTV News, and DirecTV Earth. No, not interested in DirecTV Sports.
> 
> Don't think that's possible? Take a look at what is offered to hotels by DirecTV.


ESPN News would have to go in the sports section for sure.


----------



## xmguy

Does the price increase affect more than just the package. I have the Choice Xtra Plus HD DVR. I see my package will go up from $75.99 to $79.99. Is that all or do they need MORE money? Since they just had an increase a few months back!

I also have 4 receivers.

HD access

DVR service included.

And insurance.


----------



## joshjr

xmguy said:


> Does the price increase affect more than just the package. I have the Choice Xtra Plus HD DVR. I see my package will go up from $75.99 to $79.99. Is that all or do they need MORE money? Since they just had an increase a few months back!


What increase a few months back?


----------



## xmguy

joshjr said:


> What increase a few months back?


I had the Choice Xtra plus DVR. I WAS paying $62.99 then I was paying $65.99. Other smaller changes occured also. But the package cost was the biggest.


----------



## Luck255

Mark Holtz said:


> words


I have always thought something similiar to that structure but what about just buying a certain companies programming. All espn networks, all Turner networks, MTV, 2, tres etc. They all show similiar enough programming that I think if someone were interested in one channel you wouldn't mind getting the other similiar networks. I think this would keep costs down a little and also negate the "fringe channels would dissappear" arguement.


----------



## Satelliteracer

A bit of additional perspective....from the Albany Times Union.

The "basic with standard" TV package, which includes dozens of mainstay cable channels such as CNN, ESPN and Comedy Central in addition to local broadcast channels, will *rise 9.7 percent* to $61.95 a month from $56.45 currently. The company's
"All the Best" package that combines TV with Internet and phone service will go from $139.95 a month to $146.95 a month, an *increase of 7 percent*. Time Warner Cable spokesman Jim Gordon said Tuesday that the company continues to add new programming, including high-definition channels that cost more.


----------



## James Long

Mark Holtz said:


> Don't think that's possible? Take a look at what is offered to hotels by DirecTV.


Commercial rates are a good place to start when looking at a la carte.
Via DISH MDU rates (multiple units such as apartment buildings):
ESPN + ESPN2 $4.70
ESPN + ESPN2 + ESPNews or ESPN Classic $4.20
ESPN + ESPN2 + ESPNews + ESPN Classic
PLUS ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, ESPNews HD $4.05
ESPN + ESPN2 + ESPNews + ESPN Classic + ESPNU
PLUS ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, ESPNews HD $4.00

Note the trend? The actual total price of the channels is CHEAPER if you buy them all!

BTW: That trend raises the question - why doesn't DISH and DirecTV just carry all channels in one big package that costs them less? If it is cheaper to deliver five flavors of ESPN than two why not cut costs by adding channels?

DISH and DirecTV have figured out that subscribers will pay more for those extra channels ... so why not split them up and make a few bucks more?

Cost vs price has always been fluid. Just the way the industry works!


----------



## Shades228

Mark Holtz said:


> Hmmm..... how about this.... instead of ala carte, how about package programming. This is something I dreamed up.
> 
> *DirecTV Basic* (required) - CSPAN 1, CSPAN 2, Gems, HSN, ion, Jewelry, QVC, ShopNBC, RFD, TV Guide, USA, and your locals.
> 
> *DirecTV Entertainment* - Ovation, SyFy, GSN, G4, Comedy Central, Chiller, Bravo, BBC America, A&E, TBS, TVLand, TVOne, TruTV, WGN, FX
> 
> *DirecTV Women* - Lifetime, Lifetime Movie, Oxygen, Style, WE
> 
> *DirecTV Sports* - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, Big 10, Fuel, Golf, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, Speed, Tennis, Sportsman, Verses, and your Regional Sports Network
> 
> *DirecTV Movies* - AMC, Fox Movie, HD Theater, Hallmark, IFC, Lifetime Movie, ReelzChannel, TCM
> 
> *DirecTV Family* - ABC Family, Animal Planet, Boomerang, Cartoon Network, Discovery Kids, Disney, Disney XD, Nickelodeon, Nicktoions, PBS Kids, Science, TeenNick,
> 
> *DirecTV News* - Bloomberg, CNBC, CNBC World, CNN, Current TV, ESPN News, Fox Business, Fox News, Headline News, Investigational Discovery, MSNBC, Weather,
> 
> *DirecTV Music* - CMT, Fuse, Great American Country, MTV, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, World Harvest,
> 
> *DirecTV Religion* - BYU TV, CTN, Church, Daystar, EWTN, God, Gospel, Hope, INSP, Jewish Life, Link, NRB, TCT, The Word, TBN,
> 
> *DirecTV Life* - DIY, Discovery Health, Fine Living, Food, Home and Garden, Style, Biography, TLC,
> 
> *DirecTV Earth* - Discovery, Fox Reality, History, History International, Planet Green, Science, Military, Travel
> 
> Hmmm... I think I will take DirecTV Basic, DirecTV Entertainment, DirecTV Movies, DirecTV News, and DirecTV Earth. No, not interested in DirecTV Sports.
> 
> Don't think that's possible? Take a look at what is offered to hotels by DirecTV.


I bet you'd be thrilled to pay hotel rates too.


----------



## sigma1914

Shades228 said:


> I bet you'd be thrilled to pay hotel rates too.


Exactly, they think those prices are just for the channels. Base packages before ANY channels is very high for hotels and businesses.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Mark Holtz said:


> Hmmm..... how about this.... instead of ala carte, how about package programming. This is something I dreamed up.
> 
> *DirecTV Earth* - Discovery, Fox Reality, History, History International, Planet Green, Science, Military, Travel


I'm not quite sure how Fox Reality belongs in the DirecTV Earth group... other than it's a shame Earth is home to some of the "people" on that channel.

*I would also think that some channels would have to be placed in multiple packages.*

Not disagreeing with your idea though, as I've had the same one before... though I think I've seen it before (BUD, maybe?). I could very well see this happening.

~Alan


----------



## Jeremy W

Alan Gordon said:


> I would also think that some channels would have to be placed in multiple packages.


That's crapping all over what's trying to be accomplished here. There can be no duplication of channels, period. Otherwise you're essentially making another tiered structure of packages, which is the whole thing you're trying to get away from.


----------



## VaJim

Isn't there a law that says no company price increases when the Government says there is no consumer price index increase therefore your social security and federal retirement payment did NOT increase. Who can I write about this?


----------



## dcowboy7

Mark Holtz said:


> *DirecTV Basic* (required) - CSPAN 1, CSPAN 2, Gems, HSN, ion, Jewelry, QVC, ShopNBC, RFD, TV Guide, USA, and your locals.
> *DirecTV Entertainment* - Ovation, SyFy, GSN, G4, Comedy Central, Chiller, Bravo, BBC America, A&E, TBS, TVLand, TVOne, TruTV, WGN, FX
> *DirecTV Women* - Lifetime, Lifetime Movie, Oxygen, Style, WE
> *DirecTV Sports* - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, Big 10, Fuel, Golf, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, Speed, Tennis, Sportsman, Verses, and your Regional Sports Network
> *DirecTV Movies* - AMC, Fox Movie, HD Theater, Hallmark, IFC, Lifetime Movie, ReelzChannel, TCM
> *DirecTV Family* - ABC Family, Animal Planet, Boomerang, Cartoon Network, Discovery Kids, Disney, Disney XD, Nickelodeon, Nicktoions, PBS Kids, Science, TeenNick,
> *DirecTV News* - Bloomberg, CNBC, CNBC World, CNN, Current TV, ESPN News, Fox Business, Fox News, Headline News, Investigational Discovery, MSNBC, Weather,
> *DirecTV Music* - CMT, Fuse, Great American Country, MTV, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, World Harvest,
> *DirecTV Religion* - BYU TV, CTN, Church, Daystar, EWTN, God, Gospel, Hope, INSP, Jewish Life, Link, NRB, TCT, The Word, TBN,
> *DirecTV Life* - DIY, Discovery Health, Fine Living, Food, Home and Garden, Style, Biography, TLC,
> *DirecTV Earth* - Discovery, Fox Reality, History, History International, Planet Green, Science, Military, Travel
> Hmmm... I think I will take DirecTV Basic, DirecTV Entertainment, DirecTV Movies, DirecTV News, and DirecTV Earth.
> 
> No, not interested in DirecTV Sports.


Wow someone from california not interested in sports....there's a shock.


----------



## tralfaz

Grentz said:


> The other thing to remember is that people think they want quantity over quality. People want to see "hundreds of channels" in their guide even if they only watch a few of them.


Not I. The favorites list that I use 99% of the time has 21 channels on it. The favorites list on my kids DVR has 8 channels on it.


----------



## Mark Holtz

Alan Gordon said:


> I'm not quite sure how Fox Reality belongs in the DirecTV Earth group... other than it's a shame Earth is home to some of the "people" on that channel.
> 
> *I would also think that some channels would have to be placed in multiple packages.*


Considering that I was just whipping it up quickly, it ain't bad.


----------



## CJTE

James Long said:


> Commercial rates are a good place to start when looking at a la carte.
> Via DISH MDU rates (multiple units such as apartment buildings):
> ESPN + ESPN2 $4.70
> ESPN + ESPN2 + ESPNews or ESPN Classic $4.20
> ESPN + ESPN2 + ESPNews + ESPN Classic
> PLUS ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, ESPNews HD $4.05
> ESPN + ESPN2 + ESPNews + ESPN Classic + ESPNU
> PLUS ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, ESPNews HD $4.00
> 
> Note the trend? The actual total price of the channels is CHEAPER if you buy them all!
> 
> BTW: That trend raises the question - why doesn't DISH and DirecTV just carry all channels in one big package that costs them less? If it is cheaper to deliver five flavors of ESPN than two why not cut costs by adding channels?
> 
> DISH and DirecTV have figured out that subscribers will pay more for those extra channels ... so why not split them up and make a few bucks more?
> 
> Cost vs price has always been fluid. Just the way the industry works!


That's actually somewhat strange. Buying in bulk usually accounts to less for one unit, but more overall. Based on the prices you've listed, it appears to me that you pay less overall and more for one (or two) individual units.


----------



## ATARI

Mark Holtz said:


> Hmmm..... how about this.... instead of ala carte, how about package programming. This is something I dreamed up.
> 
> *DirecTV Basic* (required) - CSPAN 1, CSPAN 2, Gems, HSN, ion, Jewelry, QVC, ShopNBC, RFD, TV Guide, USA, and your locals.
> 
> *DirecTV Entertainment* - Ovation, SyFy, GSN, G4, Comedy Central, Chiller, Bravo, BBC America, A&E, TBS, TVLand, TVOne, TruTV, WGN, FX
> 
> *DirecTV Women* - Lifetime, Lifetime Movie, Oxygen, Style, WE
> 
> *DirecTV Sports* - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, Big 10, Fuel, Golf, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, Speed, Tennis, Sportsman, Verses, and your Regional Sports Network
> 
> *DirecTV Movies* - AMC, Fox Movie, HD Theater, Hallmark, IFC, Lifetime Movie, ReelzChannel, TCM
> 
> *DirecTV Family* - ABC Family, Animal Planet, Boomerang, Cartoon Network, Discovery Kids, Disney, Disney XD, Nickelodeon, Nicktoions, PBS Kids, Science, TeenNick,
> 
> *DirecTV News* - Bloomberg, CNBC, CNBC World, CNN, Current TV, ESPN News, Fox Business, Fox News, Headline News, Investigational Discovery, MSNBC, Weather,
> 
> *DirecTV Music* - CMT, Fuse, Great American Country, MTV, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, World Harvest,
> 
> *DirecTV Religion* - BYU TV, CTN, Church, Daystar, EWTN, God, Gospel, Hope, INSP, Jewish Life, Link, NRB, TCT, The Word, TBN,
> 
> *DirecTV Life* - DIY, Discovery Health, Fine Living, Food, Home and Garden, Style, Biography, TLC,
> 
> *DirecTV Earth* - Discovery, Fox Reality, History, History International, Planet Green, Science, Military, Travel
> 
> Hmmm... I think I will take DirecTV Basic, DirecTV Entertainment, DirecTV Movies, DirecTV News, and DirecTV Earth. No, not interested in DirecTV Sports.
> 
> Don't think that's possible? Take a look at what is offered to hotels by DirecTV.


Won't happen because it makes too much sense.


----------



## CJTE

Doug Brott said:


> Folks, the simple answer is .. If everyone but you were to keep a bundle then it would definitely make sense to have a la carte programming because there would be enough people to support every channel that we now have. But of course it's silly to allow just one person a la carte but not everyone.


I agree. Thats why I was referring to my idea's as a pipe dream. I wouldn't want any provider to remove the bundled packages as an option. I believe a lot of people enjoy the channels they have bundled and paying $40 for the choice package would make a lot more sense to most people than paying $30 for the approximately 6-8 channels I was referring to.



Doug Brott said:


> Forget for a moment the added cost of maintaining a system that could have each customer with an entirely different set of channels. Folks would snap up the channels that they like .. The more popular channels would of course have enough takers to stay in business while the less popular (or fringe) channels would fold simply because the cost of doing business is greater than the revenue received .. fewer eyeballs for ads, fewer funds from redistribution fees .. So this "choice" you speak of starts to shrink. At the end of the day we'd end up with the big guys only.


I don't think the system would be as difficult as you think. Its all about ACLs. Put everyone on the deny list by default, and then add permissions as we go.



Doug Brott said:


> Here's where the fun starts .. Now the big guys start jacking up the rates because they can .. Most would be willing to pay because the alternative is no TV (some could switch to free OTA only). So where does that leave us?
> 
> When it's all said and done, a la carte leaves us with fewer choices (not more) and almost certainly the same price .. remember the cost is what the market will bear .. If it was $70/sub before a la carte .. It will still be $70/sub after a la carte. So you say, OK, I'll cut back on another channel .. and another .. that's my point. Less choice is the result of going a la carte.


I'd like to think of it as being more choice. People like my parents would subscribe to the Family package, and then add 2 or 3 more channels at a few dollars a piece. (Because in my dream bundled and custom packages co-exist).



Doug Brott said:


> The fact is, we have to live with bundling because it gives all of us the best of what we all want. It is the best way even at these prices. A la carte is NOT the way to go.


I can definitely respect that opinion


----------



## JoeTheDragon

dcowboy7 said:


> Wow someone from california not interested in sports....there's a shock.


spilt the Disney stuff in to a Disney pack.

make epsn in to a epsn pack. with the other sports on it's own.

make so you can buy your rsn on it's own.

HD Theater is not a movie channel but put HD net movies there.

Fox Reality does fit into earth under it's new name nat geo wild.

MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL are free with there own out of market pack.

Still have the other sports pack just with other RSN's not need for your own. But have a mini sport pack with non RSN stuff.

other idea

shopping (free) in basic

Comcast sports (not rsn's)

Comcast channels (not rsn's)

NBC / universal pack

fox pack (not rsn's)

fox sports (non rsn's)

Viacom

ESPN

Disney

Discovery channels

History Channels

and so on


----------



## Davenlr

The only thing I dont really like about the current system, is they ALWAYS manage to take a few popular channels, and divide them up, so that to get the 10 popular channels you want, you have to buy the next to the top package to get them all. Family has no ESPN, Choice does, but no SpeedHD, ChoicePlus has SpeedHD, but then you have to pay another $5 to get HDNet movies or Paladia.

Really clever marketing actually. I am actually expecting with D12 active, they will be adding a lot of the new channels to the HDExtra Pak, forcing those that dropped it, or havent subscribed to fork over yet another $5 a month on top of the $5 annual increase.

If they REALLY wanted to make some free money, they would offer us an option to purchase our leased DVRs after our 2 yr commit was over. I believe most other leases (cars, cell phones) either offer you a buyout option or in the case of a cell phone, just plain give it to you. This would allow us to sell them, and use the money to upgrade.


----------



## Jeremy W

Davenlr said:


> I am actually expecting with D12 active, they will be adding a lot of the new channels to the HDExtra Pak, forcing those that dropped it, or havent subscribed to fork over yet another $5 a month on top of the $5 annual increase.


They'll only add channels to the HD Extra Pack if they're HD-exclusive. They're not just going to arbitrarily add the HD simulcasts from base channels into that package.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

As someone who recently dropped the HD Extra pack, I hope that's not the case. But then again, if I see more value to it, I'll re-add it.


----------



## RACJ2

Davenlr said:


> The only thing I dont really like about the current system, is they ALWAYS manage to take a few popular channels, and divide them up, so that to get the 10 popular channels you want, you have to buy the next to the top package to get them all. Family has no ESPN, Choice does, but no SpeedHD, ChoicePlus has SpeedHD, but then you have to pay another $5 to get HDNet movies or Paladia.
> 
> Really clever marketing actually. I am actually expecting with D12 active, they will be adding a lot of the new channels to the HDExtra Pak, forcing those that dropped it, or havent subscribed to fork over yet another $5 a month on top of the $5 annual increase.
> 
> If they REALLY wanted to make some free money, they would offer us an option to purchase our leased DVRs after our 2 yr commit was over. I believe most other leases (cars, cell phones) either offer you a buyout option or in the case of a cell phone, just plain give it to you. This would allow us to sell them, and use the money to upgrade.


I agree with you about the marketing, but all providers seem to do that. On the HD Extra, for several mo's with just one click, I could have added it for free. Didn't see anything in it that made me want to bother.

On the buyout option for DVR's, if your going to keep it, there is no reason to pay extra to buy it. So the main reason you would buy it is to put it on ebay to sell it. And D* wouldn't want all those HR's out there for subscribers to add w/o a commitment. They're no dummies.


----------



## xmguy

Stuart Sweet said:


> As someone who recently dropped the HD Extra pack, I hope that's not the case. But then again, if I see more value to it, I'll re-add it.


I too plan to drop the HD Xtra package I have. I added it but found out it just wasn't worth $5 per month.


----------



## DJPellegrino

Mark Holtz said:


> Hmmm..... how about this.... instead of ala carte, how about package programming. This is something I dreamed up.
> 
> *DirecTV Basic* (required) - CSPAN 1, CSPAN 2, Gems, HSN, ion, Jewelry, QVC, ShopNBC, RFD, TV Guide, USA, and your locals.
> 
> *DirecTV Entertainment* - Ovation, SyFy, GSN, G4, Comedy Central, Chiller, Bravo, BBC America, A&E, TBS, TVLand, TVOne, TruTV, WGN, FX
> 
> *DirecTV Women* - Lifetime, Lifetime Movie, Oxygen, Style, WE
> 
> *DirecTV Sports* - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, Big 10, Fuel, Golf, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, Speed, Tennis, Sportsman, Verses, and your Regional Sports Network
> 
> *DirecTV Movies* - AMC, Fox Movie, HD Theater, Hallmark, IFC, Lifetime Movie, ReelzChannel, TCM
> 
> *DirecTV Family* - ABC Family, Animal Planet, Boomerang, Cartoon Network, Discovery Kids, Disney, Disney XD, Nickelodeon, Nicktoions, PBS Kids, Science, TeenNick,
> 
> *DirecTV News* - Bloomberg, CNBC, CNBC World, CNN, Current TV, ESPN News, Fox Business, Fox News, Headline News, Investigational Discovery, MSNBC, Weather,
> 
> *DirecTV Music* - CMT, Fuse, Great American Country, MTV, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, World Harvest,
> 
> *DirecTV Religion* - BYU TV, CTN, Church, Daystar, EWTN, God, Gospel, Hope, INSP, Jewish Life, Link, NRB, TCT, The Word, TBN,
> 
> *DirecTV Life* - DIY, Discovery Health, Fine Living, Food, Home and Garden, Style, Biography, TLC,
> 
> *DirecTV Earth* - Discovery, Fox Reality, History, History International, Planet Green, Science, Military, Travel
> 
> Hmmm... I think I will take DirecTV Basic, DirecTV Entertainment, DirecTV Movies, DirecTV News, and DirecTV Earth. No, not interested in DirecTV Sports.
> 
> Don't think that's possible? Take a look at what is offered to hotels by DirecTV.


Where is the DirecTV men channel? :lol:


----------



## CJTE

DJPellegrino said:


> Where is the DirecTV men channel? :lol:


Every channel aside of the "womens" channels are the "mens" channels...

All the sports channels, etc.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

SpikeTV.


----------



## CJTE

Stuart Sweet said:


> SpikeTV.


Is that the one with MANswers? (I actually was going to ask that until I remembered the program name and looked it up and google... But I'm still doing every little crunch I can for post count so, whoopee!)

So Yes, that is the one with MANswers haha.


----------



## MadManNBama

Wow! I see the tempers have flared quite a bit in here over this price increase issue. I also was a bit upset, so I dropped from the Premier tier down to Choice Xtra HDDVR. I still kept HBO, Showtime, and the sports package, but with my ATT bundle discount I save $25 a month.

I even sprang for the HD Extra pack and still saved that much. I just can't pay that much for TV with Hulu and other sources out there. I love DirecTV and won't leave and I hope the new bird brings us new goodies like Travel Channel HD, BBC HD, and AMC HD in time for Breaking Bad and Mad Men!

I even talked the CSR out of an additional $5 per month discount for the next 6 months, so at least DTV is willing to do what it can to make a loyal customer happy.


----------



## LI-SVT

Steve said:


> That's a bit above average for lower Westchester County in NY. Both Verizon and Cablevision offer $90 "Triple Plays". DVR's run about $15 each from Verizon. Only $7 each (w remote) from Cablevision, but they now have a $10 DVR fee (household). So $38/month for 4 DVR's.
> 
> I'd love to get confirmation from a customer, but it looks like Cablevision may have actually lowered their prices a bit from last year, probably due to FiOSTV competition.


Cablevision raised their prices this year just like DirecTv. Their DVR fee is per DVR plus the STB fee for a total of approximately $17 per DVR.

Unlike other cable cos digital STBs and DVRs are the same price for SD and HD.

As far as Cablevision Vs Fios on Long Island, Cablevison is less money for any similar package. Of the people I know who jumped on the Fios band-wagon when it rolled out only one family stayed with it after all of the discounts dried up.

Overall the Cablevision triple play is less expensive for phone, ISP, and TV than using DirecTv and other providers. That is the main reason why I switched to Cablevision. To have one HD STB, telephone, and internet with Cablevision is about $140 per month. The cable package in this case is called IO and is closest to the DirecTv CHOICE PLUS package.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Jeremy W said:


> They'll only add channels to the HD Extra Pack if they're HD-exclusive. They're not just going to arbitrarily add the HD simulcasts from base channels into that package.


Though there are 6-12 more HD exclusive channels out there, most do not have the name recognition or lineage (ownership) to probably be considered by DirecTV as being front-runners for slots on D12.

~Alan


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Gee...I wonder why they picked Tuesday February 9, 2010....


----------



## Alan Gordon

Jeremy W said:


> That's crapping all over what's trying to be accomplished here. There can be no duplication of channels, period. Otherwise you're essentially making another tiered structure of packages, which is the whole thing you're trying to get away from.


Re-read his post. They're already tiered structured packages.

Some channels go beyond simple genres.

Case(s) in point:


TBS, TNT, FX, and WGN included in the _*hypothetical*_ DirecTV Entertainment group caters strongly to the sports fans as well. Sure, you could say that that provides reason for people who might not have an interest in the DirecTV Entertainment group to subscribe to it, but that goes against the purpose of the idea, doesn't it? It's possible that you could open those channels up to DirecTV Sports subs during the times of the year when they have sports. 
DirecTV Movies lists Hallmark Channel, but Hallmark Channel is barely any more of a movie channel than TBS, FX, etc. Hallmark Channel is a better fit for the DirecTV Family group. Hallmark Movie Channel would be a better fit for the DirecTV Movies group, though I can imagine there would be people only interested in the DirecTV Family group who wouldn't be interested in the DirecTV Movies group. Better to do like Lifetime Movie Channel and put it in both packages.
AMC is listed in the DirecTV Movies group, but AMC is starting to make a name for themselves for their original programming as well ("Mad Men", "Breaking Bad", etc). I can see multiple people being interested in that, but not for their edited movies.
DirecTV News is an argument waiting to happen. Down here in the South, Fox News is _gospel_. I can see tons of people getting upset down here if they have to subscribe to multiple sources of news just to get the one channel they want. Personally, I could care less about any of the news channels, but once or twice a year, there is somebody I like to watch on Larry King Live, and there is someone else in the household who watches him more often, so I'd have to subscribe to DirecTV News just for CNN?
DirecTV Religion is pretty good, but don't some of these channels pay for carriage? Aren't some of them PI channels? Also, BYU carries some sports, as well as educational programming (cooking, painting, etc).
I'd say that at least one of the channels in DirecTV Life should go to the Women's package, but I think there are multiple channels there that would appeal to the women I know, so I think I'd leave it like Mark has it.
Cartoon Network is in the DirecTV Family group? I can think of quite a few Adult Swim films who would moan having to subscribe to the Family group just to be able to get Adult Swim.

Mark did a *GREAT* job with this list, but there exists complexities which would require either some cross-packaging (like Lifetime Movie Network in Mark's list), or making some decisions that won't please everybody... but will require people buying more packages.



Mark Holtz said:


> Considering that I was just whipping it up quickly, it ain't bad.


Agreed! 



JoeTheDragon said:


> Fox Reality does fit into earth under it's new name nat geo wild.


Thanks Joe! I had forgotten about that. Fine Living will also be changing their name as well, though they will still fit into the package Mark had them with.

~Alan


----------



## RACJ2

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Gee...I wonder why they picked Tuesday February 9, 2010....


Not sure, was it to celebrate one of these events?



> February 9
> * 474 - Zeno crowned as co-emperor of the Byzantine Empire.
> * 1555 - Bishop of Gloucester John Hooper is burned at the stake.
> * 1621 - Gregory XV becomes Pope, the last Pope elected by acclamation.
> * 1775 - American Revolutionary War: British Parliament declares Massachusetts in rebellion.
> * 1788 - The Habsburg Empire joins the Russo-Turkish War in the Russian camp.
> * 1822 - Haiti invades the newly founded Dominican Republic.
> * 1825 - After no presidential candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the United States House of Representatives elects John Quincy Adams President of the United States.
> * 1861 - American Civil War: Jefferson Davis is elected the Provisional President of the Confederate States of America by the Confederate convention at Montgomery, Alabama.
> * 1870 - The U.S. Weather Bureau is established.
> * 1885 - The first Japanese government-approved immigrants arrive in Hawaii.
> * 1889 - The United States Department of Agriculture is established as a Cabinet-level agency.
> * 1895 - William G. Morgan creates a game called Mintonette, which soon comes to be referred to as volleyball.
> * 1900 - The Davis Cup competition is established.
> * 1904 - Russo-Japanese War: Battle of Port Arthur
> * 1920 - Under the terms of the Spitsbergen Treaty, international diplomacy recognizes Norwegian sovereignty over Arctic archipelago Svalbard, and designates it as demilitarized.
> * 1922 - Brazil becomes a member of the Berne Convention copyright treaty.
> * 1934 - The Balkan Entente is formed.
> * 1942 - World War II: Top United States military leaders hold their first formal meeting to discuss American military strategy in the war.
> * 1942 - Year-round Daylight saving time is re-instated in the United States as a wartime measure to help conserve energy resources.
> * 1943 - World War II: Allied authorities declare Guadalcanal secure after Imperial Japan evacuates its remaining forces from the island, ending the Battle of Guadalcanal.
> * 1945 - World War II: The Battle of the Atlantic - HMS Venturer sinks U-864 off the coast of Fedje, Norway, in a rare instance of submarine-to-submarine combat.
> * 1950 - Second Red Scare: Senator Joseph McCarthy accuses the United States Department of State of being filled with Communists.
> * 1960 - Joanne Woodward receives the first star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
> * 1962 - Jamaica becomes independent nation within the Commonwealth of Nations.
> * 1964 - The Beatles make their first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show, performing before a "record-busting" audience of 73 million viewers.
> * 1965 - Vietnam War: The first United States combat troops are sent to South Vietnam.
> * 1969 - First test flight of the Boeing 747.
> * 1971 - The 6.4 on the Richter Scale Sylmar earthquake hits the San Fernando Valley area of California.
> * 1971 - Satchel Paige becomes the first ***** League player to be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
> * 1971 - Apollo program: Apollo 14 returns to Earth after the third manned moon landing.
> * 1973 - Biju Patnaik of the Pragati Legislature Party is elected leader of opposition in the state assembly in Orissa, India.
> * 1975 - The Soyuz 17 Soviet spacecraft returns to Earth.
> * 1991 - Voters in Lithuania vote for independence.
> * 1994 - Vance-Owen peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina is announced.
> * 1995 - Space Shuttle astronauts Bernard A. Harris, Jr. and Michael Foale become the first African American and first Briton, respectively, to perform spacewalks.
> * 1996 - The Irish Republican Army declares the end of its 18 month ceasefire shortly followed by the explosion of a large bomb in London's Canary Wharf.
> * 2001 - The American submarine USS Greeneville (SSN-772) accidentally strikes and sinks the Ehime-Maru, a Japanese training vessel operated by the Uwajima Fishery High School.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Pretty sure it was that Balkan Entente thing.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RACJ2 said:


> Not sure, was it to celebrate one of these events?


I suspect not.


----------



## Steve

LI-SVT said:


> Cablevision raised their prices this year just like DirecTv. Their DVR fee is per DVR plus the STB fee for a total of approximately $17 per DVR [...]


Thanks for the reply. Their pricing web page is worded a bit ambiguously (they called it a DVR service "add-on" fee), so I read that as a $10 DVR fee per household, not per box. It's what made me think their rates went down.

That's even more than FiOS charges per DVR... and FiOS doesn't charge extra for the remotes!


----------



## Jeremy W

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Gee...I wonder why they picked Tuesday February 9, 2010....


If you're talking about what I think you're talking about... that would be awfully quick.


----------



## hoboken

I was with dish when they had less than one million subs, switched to Direct three years ago to take advantage of more hd programming, My son has had dish for 11 years, and was going to switch to Direct because he needed hd boxes for his new tv's, but when we saw this increase, we compared the two, and he went with dish, and the new install is scheduled Monday, I wish they had held off on the notice for a couple of weeks, and I would have gotten a $100 referral, but I'm staying with Direct at least until my contract is up next January.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jeremy W said:


> If you're talking about what I think you're talking about... that would be awfully quick.


Nope...not *that*...*that* would be more like April/May some time.

But with NFL Sunday Ticket done in January...there certainly are opportunities for other things around that timeframe.


----------



## Paul Secic

tealcomp said:


> Personally I would like to see a Total Choice package of sorts with NO SPORTS whatsoever, and a requisite drop in monthly subscriptions. I know there are a lot of die hard sports fans here, but I have also seen a lot of people who are like me and could care less about that feature. I think if people want to have access to these higher programming costs (ie ESPN etc) they should be paying for that and not me


+1


----------



## RACJ2

Lord Vader said:


> Doug, I used to be a BIG proponent of _a la carte_ programming, but when I did research and a lot of reading, I realized that _a la carte_ programming and pricing would be a huge mistake for consumers and a BIG moneymaker for providers. People who think that the costs would be less because we got to pick and choose what we want and consequently pay for only what we want are fooling themselves. The sum of the parts in the case of _a la carte_ is greater than the whole.
> 
> _A la carte_ programming and pricing would be significantly more expensive for a customer. Because of this, I am against it and hope it does not become a reality (which means I do not want Congress to step in and mandate it).


Hmmm, seems like we aren't the only ones discussing a la carte [Link].



> *Will The Fox and Time Warner Cable Spat Rekindle The A La Carte Debate?*
> 
> In this economy, the possibility that cable bills will rise even further can only mean that a campaign to mandate something called the a la carte model will be rekindled. Under this model, subscribers would have the choice of receiving, and paying for, only the channels they want. That may mean you would only get 30 channels instead of 500, but they would be the channels you know you will watch on a regular basis.


----------



## JLucPicard

hoboken said:


> I was with dish when they had less than one million subs, switched to Direct three years ago to take advantage of more hd programming, My son has had dish for 11 years, and was going to switch to Direct because he needed hd boxes for his new tv's, but when we saw this increase, we compared the two, and he went with dish, and the new install is scheduled Monday, I wish they had held off on the notice for a couple of weeks, and I would have gotten a $100 referral, but I'm staying with Direct at least until my contract is up next January.


In your research, was any price increase by Dish included? I have no idea what Dish is doing as far as rates go, but I would bet they'll have a price increase, too, if they haven't had one already... My VAGUE recollection is that they do one around the same time DirecTV does, but I could certainly be wrong - I pay little to no attention to Dish Network anyway.


----------



## Alan Gordon

hoboken said:


> My son has had dish for 11 years, and was going to switch to Direct because he needed hd boxes for his new tv's, but when we saw this increase, we compared the two, and he went with dish, and the new install is scheduled Monday


Just goes to show that everybody's results are different.

To get the same service I enjoy now with DirecTV, I'd have to pay Dish Network considerably more a month.

I can't get cable, so DirecTV's not only my best choice, it's really my only choice.

~Alan


----------



## mountainDBS

Well when is it going to get to the point when enough is enough? 100 $ or more a month for just a base package with no channels worth watching?

I hope the debate between FOX and TWCable will spark someone in D.C. to bring up a bill letting us who work harder for our money to pay for only the channels we are willing to pay for. 

I downgraded to the 55.99 $ package. I wish i could have gone lower but they are forcing us to downgrade, but not "too Down" - !devil12: sneaky keeping the channels that are worth something in the higher pacakages. :soapbox:


----------



## kevinwmsn

Stuart Sweet said:


> Pretty sure it was that Balkan Entente thing.


I'm guess this if there is anything to it.

1900 - The Davis Cup competition is established.

D* likes sports.


----------



## kevinwmsn

mountainDBS said:


> Well when is it going to get to the point when enough is enough? 100 $ or more a month for just a base package with no channels worth watching?
> 
> I hope the debate between FOX and TWCable will spark someone in D.C. to bring up a bill letting us who work harder for our money to pay for only the channels we are willing to pay for.
> 
> I downgraded to the 55.99 $ package. I wish i could have gone lower but they are forcing us to downgrade, but not "too Down" - !devil12: sneaky keeping the channels that are worth something in the higher pacakages. :soapbox:


I already had a $100 package in 2006 with Mediacom if you consider digital package + hd dvr a base package(no premiums and only 1 box). That's why I left to D*.


----------



## mountainDBS

Well, guess someone has to pay for the new satellite and their HD projects and the new CEO that I heard they have coming on board. HD is their big center piece now. Forget adding new Movies channels like Cinemax, HBO etc etc.

Since I cant get HD (i have no room for the dish) and probly be the last one to get HD when forced. (since not everything is true HD, just upconverted) and until everything is shot in HD i will have to stick with SD :icon_lame


----------



## 1930Ray

riprecked said:


> New Rates for DIRECTV® Service: New prices take effect February 9, 2010, and will appear on billing statements issued after that date. See the detailed information below as it relates to your service.
> 
> If your current DIRECTV base package price is part of a national promotional 12-month or "Lock in Your Price for 12 Months" offer, you will continue to receive this price for the remainder of your offer period. As of next month's bill, your promotional price will be shown on your statement as the new price along with a credit. Note: if you change your current base package, you may no longer be eligible for the credit.
> 
> Base Packages: Base packages include local channels, where available. If DIRECTV does not offer local channels in your area, most programming packages are $3/ mo. less than the listed prices. Visit directv.com/locals to check availability by ZIP code. Packages and their new prices: CHOICE $58.99/mo.; CHOICE XTRA $63.99/ mo.; Jadeworld $39.99/mo.; LO MÁXIMO $114.99/mo.; OPTIMO MÁS $47.99/mo.; PREFERRED CHOICE $38.99/mo.; PREMIER $114.99/mo.; and TOTAL CHOICE® MOBILE $63.99/mo.
> 
> The following legacy base packages* and their new prices: BASIC $15.99/mo.; BÁSICO $35.99/mo.; DIRECTV LIMITED $27.99/mo.; FAMILIAR $51.99/mo.; FAMILIAR ULTRA $60.99/mo.; OPCIÓN ESPECIAL® $35.99/mo.; OPCIÓN EXTRATM $43.99/mo.; OPCIÓN EXTRA ESPECIAL® $52.99/mo.; OPCIÓN PREMIER® $108.99/mo.; OPCIÓN ULTRA ESPECIAL® $54.99/mo.; OPTIMO MÁS PLUS DVR $53.99/mo.; PLUS DIRECTV $36.99/mo.; PLUS DVR $69.99/mo.; PLUS HD DVR $79.99/mo.; SELECT CHOICE® $41.99/mo.; TOTAL CHOICE® $57.49/mo.; TOTAL CHOICE® LIMITED $48.99/mo.; and TOTAL CHOICE® PLUS $61.49/mo. SELECT will increase $3.00/mo.
> 
> Other services and their new prices: DIRECTV® DVR Service fee $7.00/mo.; RussianDirect II $39.99/mo.
> 
> *These packages are no longer available for sale. Customers who currently subscribe to these packages may maintain them as long as their account is in "good standing", as determined by DIRECTV in its sole discretion. For complete pricing and packaging information, visit directv.com/packages. Programming, pricing, terms and conditions subject to change at any time. Hardware and programming available separately. Pricing is residential. Taxes not included. Receipt of DIRECTV programming is subject to the terms of the DIRECTV Customer Agreement; a copy is provided at directv.com/legal and in your bill or in the first month notification. ©2009 DIRECTV, Inc. DIRECTV and the Cyclone Design logo, CHOICE, CHOICE XTRA, TOTAL CHOICE, PREMIER, FAMILIAR, FAMILIAR ULTRA, OPTIMO MÁS, MÁS ULTRA, LO MÁXIMO, PREFERRED CHOICE and all other DIRECTV International service names are trademarks of DIRECTV, Inc. All other trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners. 11/09 30896-0


I've been with "D" for 10 years and happy with the service I've had, but with these new rates again, cable or Dish are beginning to look inviting. I don't really want to go but with no COLA in social security the financial picture enters into making the decision.


----------



## smokey99

I have about 4 months left on my contract then I'm switching to cable. I'll bundle my internet and TV and save at least $75.00/mo for comparable service. At one time DirecTV could justify charging higher rates than their competitors, but they've since lost that edge... even with the new lauch.


----------



## wingrider01

smokey99 said:


> I have about 4 months left on my contract then I'm switching to cable. I'll bundle my internet and TV and save at least $75.00/mo for comparable service. At one time DirecTV could justify charging higher rates than their competitors, but they've since lost that edge... even with the new lauch.


and what will your rates be after the specil pricing runs out?


----------



## RACJ2

smokey99 said:


> I have about 4 months left on my contract then I'm switching to cable. I'll bundle my internet and TV and save at least $75.00/mo for comparable service. At one time DirecTV could justify charging higher rates than their competitors, but they've since lost that edge... even with the new lauch.


I understand saving money and will agree that currently D* has lost their edge. Although, based on what we are hearing, about the time you drop sercvice, they will once again have the competitive edge. The good news is, you will get all kinds of D* promos to sign back up, once you make the switch.


----------



## Janice805

1930Ray, I'm with you. Customer since 1998, on Social Security, and this is getting really tough with hard decisions on what I can afford in life coming.

BUT, how is everyone finding out about "price increases"??? I've not received any mailer or e-mail. My bill is due on the 2nd of the month and I just paid it today (old amount), meaning what? My next bill for Premier (and other services) will be suddenly increased 03/02/10 with no notice?


----------



## Janice805

Oops. Not enough coffee. I mean increase on next bill 02/02/10 (not 03/02/10) ... lol.


----------



## Jeremy W

Janice805 said:


> how is everyone finding out about "price increases"??? I've not received any mailer or e-mail. My bill is due on the 2nd of the month and I just paid it today (old amount), meaning what? My next bill for Premier (and other services) will be suddenly increased 03/02/10 with no notice?


Your next bill will be the old amount, with a notice stating that it'll be going up the following month. Right now, it's only posted on DirecTV's website.


----------



## Shades228

Janice805 said:


> 1930Ray, I'm with you. Customer since 1998, on Social Security, and this is getting really tough with hard decisions on what I can afford in life coming.
> 
> BUT, how is everyone finding out about "price increases"??? I've not received any mailer or e-mail. My bill is due on the 2nd of the month and I just paid it today (old amount), meaning what? My next bill for Premier (and other services) will be suddenly increased 03/02/10 with no notice?


You'll receive an email notification or an insert in your next bill about the price increase.

The good news is since you sub to premier you have some options for removing some programming to make it in your budgett. In todays economy some people are struggling to afford the Family package.


----------



## Jotas

smokey99 said:


> I have about 4 months left on my contract then I'm switching to cable. I'll bundle my internet and TV and save at least $75.00/mo for comparable service. At one time DirecTV could justify charging higher rates than their competitors, but they've since lost that edge... even with the new lauch.


I'll probably do a similar move to Fios TV with Internet. I'll be saving big time plus the networkable HD DVR is a nice touch, in addition to the $150 visa gift card you get. Pricing after their promo is still good and I only have to commit to one year. After that, I'll go back to D*.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Jotas said:


> I'll probably do a similar move to Fios TV with Internet. I'll be saving big time plus the networkable HD DVR is a nice touch, in addition to the $150 visa gift card you get. Pricing after their promo is still good and I only have to commit to one year. After that, I'll go back to D*.


To bad the small HDD in the fios box only has room for about 20 hours HD.


----------



## joshjr

Jotas said:


> I'll probably do a similar move to Fios TV with Internet. I'll be saving big time plus the networkable HD DVR is a nice touch, in addition to the $150 visa gift card you get. Pricing after their promo is still good and I only have to commit to one year. After that, I'll go back to D*.


One question. How many hours of HD will you be able to record on the HD DVR? With most cable company's it aint much.


----------



## dcowboy7

Cant u just add an esata drive....1 TB gets u about 240 HD hours.


----------



## joshjr

dcowboy7 said:


> Cant u just add an esata drive....1 TB gets u about 240 HD hours.


To a cable DVR? I have no clue. I think the cable co here has HD DVR's that hold like 20 hours HD.


----------



## Jeremy W

joshjr said:


> To a cable DVR? I have no clue. I think the cable co here has HD DVR's that hold like 20 hours HD.


I am not aware of any cable DVR (provided by the company, not Moxi or Tivo) that allows storage to be expanded.


----------



## dcowboy7

So on Fios dvr u cant add an esata ? wow didnt know that....major drawback.


----------



## dubber deux

We're only seeing a sliver of the grumbling that subscribers are doing concerning cable and sat rates.....I would bet that over the next couple of years we will see a significant reduction of subscribers to ALL pay services offered and most of those that remain will make significant cuts to their packages.

I'm not solely harping on D* here it is an INDUSTRYwide problem regarding increasing costs....

Bottom line is that unlike electricity and a roof over your head, "entertainment" is NOT a necessity and many folks are finally realizing that this economy is not looking like it will improve for the general populace for a long, long time....*The is no question in my mind that we are in a DEPRESSION. The experts are talking about a "jobless recovery" and for the everyday "joe" that means perpetual unemployment for many.*


----------



## Lord Vader

:crying::crying::crying:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I suspect that this is all just the tip of the iceberg on the subject of rates and competitive offerings.

We've already started to see some hard-nosed negotiations from content providers with cable and sat companies with recent agreement renewals, and there will likely be more and more of that throughout 2010 and 2011.

It would not surprise me to see:

1) Several existing content providers consolidate, terminate, or migrate their HD channels - including one or more of the premium movie channels

2) A few HD channel content providers fail altogether

3) More diversity seen between cable and satellite resulting in new/different "packages" of HD channels

4) Prices continue to go up in 2010, and then thereafter perhaps level off a bit once agreements are negotiated or re-negotiated.

When you read about the national TV networks and their financial woes, as well as the reality of some of the smaller content providers trying to keep up to date with HD technology and the corresponding costs, there is reason to believe we'll see some significant changes over the next 24 months...and not all of them will be good (unfortunately).


----------



## Smthkd

With this rate increase, they need to stop charging a lease fee and fees for each box activated. To me thats a fair exchange. Really, why do I need to pay $4.99/mth or $5.99 cant remember for each additional box in my house when Im already getting the signal from my dish?


----------



## Jeremy W

Smthkd said:


> With this rate increase, they need to stop charging a lease fee and fees for each box activated. To me thats a fair exchange.


It's fair to you, but not to DirecTV. Find me any other service that simply gives additional boxes away, and then you can make an argument. Otherwise, you're just dealing with fantasy.


----------



## tralfaz

dcowboy7 said:


> So on Fios dvr u cant add an esata ? wow didnt know that....major drawback.


The good news is that the Fios DVR is so crappy you won't want to use it anyway, so not being able to add an esata won't be a big deal. Anyone considering going to Fios will need to invest in new Tivo's.


----------



## babzog

Jeremy W said:


> It's fair to you, but not to DirecTV. Find me any other service that simply gives additional boxes away, and then you can make an argument. Otherwise, you're just dealing with fantasy.


Bollocks. They own the equipment, period. While that technically gives them the right to charge whatever they like (which encourages some to say the equivalent of "Don't like it, then shove off"), the fact that the equipment isn't mine and can never become mine should place some rights (other than cancelling) into my hands. I should be able to have a reasonable number (currently, DTV defines reasonable as '1' - it could easily be made 2,3 or more since there's no risk to them) of receivers for my home without being nickle and dimed for the "privilege" of powering their equipment to send the signal for which I've paid, to the equipment of my choice.

Frankly, I'm more annoyed about the DVR fee. Come on, a fee to use a built-in feature of the equipment? It's an outrageous abuse of the customer carried out in the name of "free enterprise". I think it's a sad reflection on the state of corporate responsibility and customer service.


----------



## Maleman

babzog said:


> Bollocks. They own the equipment, period. While that technically gives them the right to charge whatever they like (which encourages some to say the equivalent of "Don't like it, then shove off"), the fact that the equipment isn't mine and can never become mine should place some rights (other than cancelling) into my hands. I should be able to have a reasonable number (currently, DTV defines reasonable as '1' - it could easily be made 2,3 or more since there's no risk to them) of receivers for my home without being nickle and dimed for the "privilege" of powering their equipment to send the signal for which I've paid, to the equipment of my choice.
> 
> Frankly, I'm more annoyed about the DVR fee. Come on, a fee to use a built-in feature of the equipment? It's an outrageous abuse of the customer carried out in the name of "free enterprise". I think it's a sad reflection on the state of corporate responsibility and customer service.


Yah when I first got Directv I was shocked they charged a DVR fee lol, coming from north of the border their has never been a DVR fee from any provider. Money grab for sure.


----------



## JLucPicard

babzog said:


> Frankly, I'm more annoyed about the DVR fee. Come on, a fee to use a built-in feature of the equipment? It's an outrageous abuse of the customer carried out in the name of "free enterprise". I think it's a sad reflection on the state of corporate responsibility and customer service.


So in other words, you would much rather have those people who choose not to have any DVRs pay a portion of their bill to subsidise those that DO choose to have DVRs? How outrageously abused would those people have a right to be if that were the case?

There are costs associated with DVR usage beyond just the functionality built into the equipment we have in our homes.


----------



## Jeremy W

babzog said:


> Bollocks. They own the equipment, period. While that technically gives them the right to charge whatever they like (which encourages some to say the equivalent of "Don't like it, then shove off"), the fact that the equipment isn't mine and can never become mine should place some rights (other than cancelling) into my hands.


*Every provider owns the equipment.* Like I said, if DirecTV were doing something that wasn't the same with every other provider out there, you may have a point. Otherwise, you're complaining about an established industry practice and placing undeserved blame squarely on DirecTV.

You *asked *for the equipment, knowing *full well *what you'd be charged for it. Your argument is meritless and simply ridiculous.


----------



## ntwrkd

I just called TWC in my area. Actually no one answered so I had to do an online chat (another reason to stay with D*)
Here goes...

TWC DTV Value. (all channels plus HD without premiums) $72.95
DVR Service $12.95
HDDVR $12.95
Installation $40.95
Each additional HDDVR $12.95
Their rates will go up soon but I forgot to ask the chat dude exactly how much. 
Keep in mind they do not offer as many HD channels. They don't carry the NFL network and MLB is not in HD.

I have legacy PlusHDDVR service with D* and will incur an increase of $4. 
I would be crazy to even consider switching. I'm positive I will be receiving more HD channels when D12 comes online and the monthly costs of additional HDDVR's is so much cheaper with D*, not to mention customer service, better software on their DVR's and investment in the latest technologies. My 2 cents, $4 is a small price to pay for the value I am getting with D*.


----------



## joshjr

ntwrkd said:


> I just called TWC in my area. Actually no one answered so I had to do an online chat (another reason to stay with D*)
> Here goes...
> 
> TWC DTV Value. (all channels plus HD without premiums) $72.95
> DVR Service $12.95
> HDDVR $12.95
> Installation $40.95
> Each additional HDDVR $12.95
> Their rates will go up soon but I forgot to ask the chat dude exactly how much.
> Keep in mind they do not offer as many HD channels. They don't carry the NFL network and MLB is not in HD.
> 
> I have legacy PlusHDDVR service with D* and will incur an increase of $4.
> I would be crazy to even consider switching. I'm positive I will be receiving more HD channels when D12 comes online and the monthly costs of additional HDDVR's is so much cheaper with D*, not to mention customer service, better software on their DVR's and investment in the latest technologies. My 2 cents, $4 is a small price to pay for the value I am getting with D*.


Those prices are crazy. Sounds like the cable co here.


----------



## jal

Is there any difference between Plus HDDVR and whatever the package is now called?


----------



## jal

Agreed! Stop charging mirror fees or whatever its called now. What was the name of the package they never released which would have included all boxes in your home?


----------



## Jeremy W

jal said:


> Is there any difference between Plus HDDVR and whatever the package is now called?


Plus HD DVR will stay around for anyone that currently has it. There is no equivalent to this package in the new lineup.


----------



## Blurayfan

jal said:


> Is there any difference between Plus HDDVR and whatever the package is now called?


Plus HD DVR = Choice Xtra HD DVR. The package was just renamed no other changes. Feb 9, 2010 this package will not be available for purchase.


----------



## sigma1914

dubber deux said:


> ....*The is no question in my mind that we are in a DEPRESSION. The experts are talking about a "jobless recovery" and for the everyday "joe" that means perpetual unemployment for many.*


A depression? Didn't recent studies show an increase in holiday spending, especially online?

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/3...-strong-growth-in-consumer-electronics-sales/


> It appears that online holiday spending rose slightly this year, by 5 percent, to $27 billion for the shopping season from November 1 through Christmas Eve, according to comScore.


How depressing!


----------



## JoeTheDragon

jal said:


> Is there any difference between Plus HDDVR and whatever the package is now called?


I think it is about 0.01 - 0.03 less then buy all the parts on there own.


----------



## Tim Godsil

20 years ago people with a c-band (big) dish could pick the channels they want and pay for them.

Ala carte will never become a reality as broadcasters want to sell their channels as a bundle or not at all.

Now there are currently 4 satellite TV providers 
Dish Network and Directv on Ku band (little dish)
and Call NPS and skyvision (on big dish)

With the little dish programming packages are higher then big dish. Its because c band you have to buy your own equipment.

When you pay your directv bill, a part of it goes towards:

*System Installation* Those people that put your dish up have to get paid.
*Receiver Cost* They give you the receiver for free, you have to pay for it somewhere.

Anyway I could go on and on about 2 year contracts, etc.

But the point is we are paying too much for satellite TV.

In 2008 Directv made 1.45 billion dollars net income. Net income is how much many you have left, after paying all expenses, taxes, etc.

Now lets take that 1.44 billion and split it up among the 18.5 million people subscribing.

Thats roughly 78 dollars, split up among 12 months, 6 and a half dollars.

So that means every subscriber is paying 6 and a half dollars more for programming then they should.

So here is what Directv needs to do:

*Change their programming packages* make more of them offering more/less channels. Would help people spending 10 dollars a month to see 1-2 extra channels.


----------



## CJTE

Tim Godsil said:


> So that means every subscriber is paying 6 and a half dollars more for programming then they should.
> 
> So here is what Directv needs to do:
> 
> *Change their programming packages* make more of them offering more/less channels. Would help people spending 10 dollars a month to see 1-2 extra channels.


According to whom? I'm sure DirecTV is greatly appreciating that extra 6.5 dollars, and why would they want to just break even?
They've designed their programming packages with certain channels in certain places for 2 reasons. 1) Contracts, and 2) Money.
If they put all the great channels in the choice package, most wouldn't see the need for Premier, and then DirecTV would be losing a lot of money.


----------



## corpx

This blows. The only TV I watch is Live Sports. I can download anything else I want from the internet. So basically, I'll be paying $80+ a month to watch like 6 channels.

What bull****. It'll be a lot cheaper to switch back to the cable bundle(s).

That said, does this increase all you to get out of your contract?


----------



## sigma1914

corpx said:


> That said, does this increase all you to get out of your contract?


:lol::lol::lol: No. :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## drded

Tim Godsil said:


> In 2008 Directv made 1.45 billion dollars net income. Net income is how much many you have left, after paying all expenses, taxes, etc.
> 
> Now lets take that 1.44 billion and split it up among the 18.5 million people subscribing.
> 
> Thats roughly 78 dollars, split up among 12 months, 6 and a half dollars.
> 
> So that means every subscriber is paying 6 and a half dollars more for programming then they should.


On the surface this sounds good. However, this thinking ignores the fact that DirecTV needs to come up with some big $$ to launch D-12, for example. So I'm sure they invest in the future. They also have to replace transmission equipment, upgrade equipment, add new local receiving stations, and so on. If they just broke even none of that would be possible. And, if they just broke even, which bank would even consider lending them money to do any of those thing?

Dave


----------



## RACJ2

Jeremy W said:


> *Every provider owns the equipment.* Like I said, if DirecTV were doing something that wasn't the same with every other provider out there, you may have a point. Otherwise, you're complaining about an established industry practice and placing undeserved blame squarely on DirecTV.
> 
> You *asked *for the equipment, knowing *full well *what you'd be charged for it. Your argument is meritless and simply ridiculous.


I agree, they aren't doing anything different then other providers do. You don't own the equipment, you pay monthlies and the price goes up. I never like a price hike, but that's happens with almost everything. At least with this price increase, we should see a lot more HD channels for our monthlies.

On the monthly charges for DVRs & receivers, at least its only $5 for each additional receiver/DVR and a $6 DVR charge/account. As others have mentioned, with cable you pay a DVR charge for each DVR. My parents pay $7.33/mo for the DVR hardware and $7.95 for the DVR service. So each DVR costs $15.28. Even with the D* price hike, if you have one HD receiver and one DVR, the DVR only costs $12/mo (5+7). If you have 2 DVR's, they average $8.50/mo (10+7/2). So for me I prefer D*'s pricing over cable.


----------



## Shades228

Tim Godsil said:


> 20 years ago people with a c-band (big) dish could pick the channels they want and pay for them.
> 
> Ala carte will never become a reality as broadcasters want to sell their channels as a bundle or not at all.
> 
> Now there are currently 4 satellite TV providers
> Dish Network and Directv on Ku band (little dish)
> and Call NPS and skyvision (on big dish)
> 
> With the little dish programming packages are higher then big dish. Its because c band you have to buy your own equipment.
> 
> When you pay your directv bill, a part of it goes towards:
> 
> *System Installation* Those people that put your dish up have to get paid.
> *Receiver Cost* They give you the receiver for free, you have to pay for it somewhere.
> 
> Anyway I could go on and on about 2 year contracts, etc.
> 
> But the point is we are paying too much for satellite TV.
> 
> In 2008 Directv made 1.45 billion dollars net income. Net income is how much many you have left, after paying all expenses, taxes, etc.
> 
> Now lets take that 1.44 billion and split it up among the 18.5 million people subscribing.
> 
> Thats roughly 78 dollars, split up among 12 months, 6 and a half dollars.
> 
> So that means every subscriber is paying 6 and a half dollars more for programming then they should.
> 
> So here is what Directv needs to do:
> 
> *Change their programming packages* make more of them offering more/less channels. Would help people spending 10 dollars a month to see 1-2 extra channels.


So you think DirecTV should break even? That there should not be a profit? Ignoring the fact that your math is average based and not actually correct as they've already stated 40% of their subscribers make 60% of their revenue.

When you go to work is it your goal to break even every week and not have extra money?


----------



## dubber deux

Shades228 said:


> So you think DirecTV should break even? That there should not be a profit?


Honestly, YOU don't believe that D* is making out like a bandit when it comes to profits considering all the customer base increase and constant rate hikes over the past several years?!?!?!?

Don't even think of equating a small joe with D* when it comes to "making a profit, or breaking even".

Just like when D* stops carrying an expensive program service like "VS" fails to add another similar channel in its place and then actually INCREASES the monthly sub rate....Haaaahhh~!:nono2:


----------



## Canis Lupus

These type of discussions never cease to amaze me. 

Cable, Satellite, Internet - all of these services are pay services - nay luxury services. If you don't want to pay, you don't have to. 

If you want the service, you may have to cut back in other areas to continue to afford it - or work more/harder to continue to have the service.

This is no different than anything else in your life you choose, or choose not, to pay for. 

Profits for telecommunications companies like DirecTV will never change, just like any other for-profit company. 

If you don't want the service, there's always an antenna.


----------



## Shades228

dubber deux said:


> Honestly, YOU don't believe that D* is making out like a bandit when it comes to profits considering all the customer base increase and constant rate hikes over the past several years?!?!?!?
> 
> Don't even think of equating a small joe with D* when it comes to "making a profit, or breaking even".
> 
> Just like when D* stops carrying an expensive program service like "VS" fails to add another similar channel in its place and then actually INCREASES the monthly sub rate....Haaaahhh~!:nono2:


VS wasn't expensive it was a waste of money in the tier it was in according to them. They were spending more on a product that wasn't worth it to them.

Where do you think this money goes? What do you think happens with this profit?

Why shouldn't I equate it with a small Joe? I'm a small Joe and I expect them to make a profit because it helps me out. It helps my stock and it helps ensure that the company I prefer for my tv choice continues to improve itself. I know parts of my mutual funds also buy entertainment stock including DirecTV. I know that millions of small Joe's are counting on their stock as well in all major companies. So you tell me why it's any different.

The bottom line is we all want more money to do better things with. Companies are no different. So no I don't think they make out like a bandit because a company is not 1 person. It's a collective of people who will benefit from the profit. The difference to me is that I don't let price increases impact my financial situation. I make sure that I have comfort zones in my personal financial expenditures each month and that if something were to get to the point where it would negatively impact me I would make a decision at that time. Would I like to pay the same rates for things that I did 10 years ago? You bet I would but it's not going to happen so there's not much point in complaining about it. It's my job as a consumer to plan and prepare for it.


----------



## dubber deux

Maybe a "company" isn't ONE person BUT a "corporation" is. 

Problem is that the concept of a "reasonable profit" seems to have been lost among greedy shareholders and corporate mangement and the board of directors...there is also the complication of the complex contracts that D* doles out to the consumer, while buyer beware clearly applies to any purchase the complicated nature of the contracts and the legalese contained within it makes it unreasonable to expect that the typical consumer will be able to understand the concequences (such as channel changes, and rate price hikes, ect) 

I was prepared for such things but most consumers are not that savvy generally..I actually READ the contract as best as I could and understood almost all of it. 

The most painful thing for D* will be that over the next couple of years they will likely lose many customers and others will opt for lower prices options and nothing from D* at all. 


The customer is #1. If your business doesn't understand that then such an entity deserves to go out of business eventually.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

dubber deux said:


> The most painful thing for D* will be that over the next couple of years they will likely lose many customers and others will opt for lower prices options and nothing from D* at all.


Maybe, maybe not....as virtually all other providers are also raising prices, even with less content to offer subscribers. But yes, the long term results are really in the hands of the end subscribers.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

jal said:


> Agreed! Stop charging mirror fees or whatever its called now. What was the name of the package they never released which would have included all boxes in your home?


Was it the Titanium package?


----------



## dubber deux

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Maybe, maybe not....as virtually all other providers are also raising prices, even with less content to offer subscribers. But yes, the long term results are really in the hands of the end subscribers.


I'm not solely focusing on D* with this comment either. I say the same applies to all pay providers.....you're gunna see ALOT of folks (out of necessity) go back to good ole OTA FREE TV....

One thing I did wonder about...there is a problem with OTA in numerous markets because of the less powerful digital broadcasting nowadays...There has been quite a bit of grumbling among viewers of OTA on this subject....I find it interesting that prices for subscriber TV has increased significantly more over the past year than in previous years as well overall.

Mandating DTV OTA certainly hasn't hurt pay TV has it.....since quite a number of viewers have HAD to go PAY because of the signal issues ...Conspriacy or just Conspiracy Theory? I wonder.

Of course the FCC gets to "auction off" those vacated freqs to the highest bidder as well...Something seems a bit fishy to me.


----------



## Jeremy W

dubber deux said:


> I'm not solely focusing on D* with this comment either. I say the same applies to all pay providers.....you're gunna see ALOT of folks (out of necessity) go back to good ole OTA FREE TV....


If only you were the first person to proclaim this.  People like you have been saying this for years, and the TV providers keep posting record subscriber numbers. For the majority of people, OTA is not a viable replacement, otherwise they'd be using it right now.


----------



## babzog

JLucPicard said:


> So in other words, you would much rather have those people who choose not to have any DVRs pay a portion of their bill to subsidise those that DO choose to have DVRs? How outrageously abused would those people have a right to be if that were the case?
> 
> There are costs associated with DVR usage beyond just the functionality built into the equipment we have in our homes.


Uh-huh. It has nothing to do with group A "subsidizing", as you say, group B. The equipment is sitting there, powered on, showing a rerun of Cagney and Lacey. What difference does it make to anyone if I can pause and go for some snacks or not? Answer: none.

To answer your question: Folks who want DVRs pay for them (well, maybe not the first one, but for the 2nd+ receiver in the home, according to the website, only the standard-def non-dvr receiver is free). They're still pricey at BB too if you want to go get one there. Point is: there's no subsidies for a built-in feature of the hardware. That's like arguing that my getting the picture in color should be priced accordingly.



RACJ2 said:


> I agree, they aren't doing anything different then other providers do. You don't own the equipment, you pay monthlies and the price goes up. I never like a price hike, but that's happens with almost everything. At least with this price increase, we should see a lot more HD channels for our monthlies.
> 
> On the monthly charges for DVRs & receivers, at least its only $5 for each additional receiver/DVR and a $6 DVR charge/account. As others have mentioned, with cable you pay a DVR charge for each DVR. My parents pay $7.33/mo for the DVR hardware and $7.95 for the DVR service. So each DVR costs $15.28. Even with the D* price hike, if you have one HD receiver and one DVR, the DVR only costs $12/mo (5+7). If you have 2 DVR's, they average $8.50/mo (10+7/2). So for me I prefer D*'s pricing over cable.


So the price structure and fee hike is okay because they rape us slightly less roughly than other media bullies? Just because something is an "industry practice" doesn't justify said practice. Unfortunately, too many are against legislators stepping in and occasionally giving the landscape a shakeup. There is such a thing as corporate abuse of consumers and the argument of "let the free market dictate", is not valid 100% of the time. What I don't get is why more people don't consider this outrageous and demand a change. Years ago, you'd spend $300 or more for equipment, made by Sony, RCA and others, but it was _yours_. You owned it, lock, stock and barrel. Now, you spend $200 and you wind up with nothing at the end! And this is considered progress? 

(I don't expect that to change anytime soon though, not while there's sooo much money changing hands.)

If they could at least deliver the content without the contant video stutters and audio brrps, then I could feel a bit better about that hand digging deeper. As it is, they're forcing higher fees without having (significantly) improved the service in the last year.



Jeremy W said:


> *Every provider owns the equipment.* Like I said, if DirecTV were doing something that wasn't the same with every other provider out there, you may have a point. Otherwise, you're complaining about an established industry practice and placing undeserved blame squarely on DirecTV.
> 
> You *asked *for the equipment, knowing *full well *what you'd be charged for it. Your argument is meritless and simply ridiculous.


No... my argument stands on it's own. I also didn't single out DTV.. they just happen to be the subject of this thread (and I've had no experience with a provider other than DTV for the last 12 years). I don't like much of what the media bullies (some call them providers, some even call them moguls) do and while you are right in that there's little we can do short of voting with our wallets, it never hurts to vent a bit.

There's also a difference between ordering equipment and agreeing to a price which one should expect to pay over the term of the contract vs having the contract terms unilaterally changed with little to no warning and having no recourse but to pay the new price. This is not acceptable in other industries (government aside, where having an inside contact can sometimes smooth over "inconsistencies" in contract actualization).


----------



## Shades228

dubber deux said:


> Maybe a "company" isn't ONE person BUT a "corporation" is.
> 
> Problem is that the concept of a "reasonable profit" seems to have been lost among greedy shareholders and corporate mangement and the board of directors...there is also the complication of the complex contracts that D* doles out to the consumer, while buyer beware clearly applies to any purchase the complicated nature of the contracts and the legalese contained within it makes it unreasonable to expect that the typical consumer will be able to understand the concequences (such as channel changes, and rate price hikes, ect)
> 
> I was prepared for such things but most consumers are not that savvy generally..I actually READ the contract as best as I could and understood almost all of it.
> 
> The most painful thing for D* will be that over the next couple of years they will likely lose many customers and others will opt for lower prices options and nothing from D* at all.
> 
> The customer is #1. If your business doesn't understand that then such an entity deserves to go out of business eventually.


I would just stop while you're only that far behind. First off you didn't answer the question as to where you think the money goes. You just think it's bad that they make a profit in the amount they do. If by reasonable you mean that they should be able to generate enough cash flow to buy back stock, provide increased pay for employees the next year, have cash on hand to order multiple satellites in case of an emergency then perhaps that is a reasonable profit.

The definition of corporation is:
*-noun *1.an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation for a source.

So it's still not one person. I'm not sure what angle you were going for on that but it was incorrect.

The service agreement has been quoted already many times in this thread and nothing in it is in legalese when it comes to pricing and programming subject to change. It's plain english that anyone could understand above a 5th grade reading level. In fact the only part that's a higher reading level is when it gets into arbitration and that's in the legal section dealing with law suits.

I get that you think that company's are big and bad and you hoped, 6 months ago, that we were at some point where costs would go down due to the economy. I can tell you right now that costs will always increase in this industry. They will never go down because that money has to come from somewhere. People who make these shows will always find a way to get that money. That money will always come from the consumers.

You keep repeating the customer is number 1. Well the customer is number 1 but if the customer can't afford the service they shouldn't have chosen it. If they aren't happy with the cost they shouldn't subscribe to it and if the customer thinks they can do better somewhere else then they should.


----------



## Ext 721

dubber deux said:


> I'm not solely focusing on D* with this comment either. I say the same applies to all pay providers.....you're gunna see ALOT of folks (out of necessity) go back to good ole OTA FREE TV....


I read an article recently that the big networks (abc, nbc, cbs, fox) are barely turning a profit.

Free TV based on advertising is dying.

the advertising part of the cable-channel income is lagging.

they need to charge more to cable/sat co's to make up for it.
in turn, the cable/sat co's charge more to consumers.

Years ago in here, I posted that the DVR was likely to choke advertiser-subsidised TV as we know it.

It has.

when 10% of viewers skip the ads, advertisers pay attention, and want to pay about 10% less per ad.

which is 10% less money to free TV.

which is 10% cheaper programming to maintain the same profit

which buys less "good programming"

which attracts fewer viewers

which leads to lower ratings

which affect ad sales!!

in fact...

"* 85% of DVR owners skip three-quarters of all commercials

One-quarter of consumers surveyed own a digital video recorder (DVR), with another 20% planning to purchase in 2008. As many as 85% of those viewers skip 75% or more of commercials. Only 5% did not skip any ads. "

source: http://www.switched.com/2008/08/07/dvr-owners-do-indeed-skip-ads-study-affirms

since .85 * .25 * .75 = .16

we can say about 15% of all ads are skipped by this technology.

and we'll see more of the following: 
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/12450
"The End of Free TV is Nearing"


----------



## Tim Godsil

The age of free TV is _*not*_ ending.

_*The age of greedy broadcasters should be.*_

If you look up something called freeview, which it based in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand...

You will find that they get a lot of satellite TV channels for free.

They are not for profit like PBS.

So maybe if satellite companies turned not for profit, we wouldn't see rate hikes nearly every 2 years.

Something _*Could*_ be done about the cost of satellite TV and cable. Instead of biting the bullet and paying more, we need to protest it.

If everyone quit paying their bill, pretty soon Satellite and Cable Companies would began to loose money, maybe getting them to rethink their budget.

If you don't want to listen to me, and continue paying more and more every 2 years, until the point where you have to take up a second job just to pay your bill, that's fine. All we are doing it feeding the pig.

But I think it's time for a change.


----------



## Smthkd

Jeremy W said:


> It's fair to you, but not to DirecTV. Find me any other service that simply gives additional boxes away, and then you can make an argument. Otherwise, you're just dealing with fantasy.


 Before u speak you should ask yourself whether or not I bought my equipment which I did but under their protection program that I have always had they sent a replacement box and charged a lease fee for it. A box I have actually paid for over time and by my monthly Premier subscription. The other boxes which I still own they continue to charge per box. So you see, Im not living in a fantasy but reality. This is why companies like D* can get away with sticking their hands in everyones pockets because so many synical people out there tolerate their business practices.:nono2:


----------



## Upstream

JLucPicard said:


> There are costs associated with DVR usage beyond just the functionality built into the equipment we have in our homes.


Really? What costs?

The only potential cost I can think of, outside the functionality of the equipment we have in our homes, is delivering guide information. But DirecTV does that anyway to provide interactive guides on their non-DVR receivers. And that cost is so negligible that the TV tuner card on my computer downloads a free guide from the internet to drive it's DVR capabilities.

What other costs exist for DVRs which do not exist for non-DVR receivers?


----------



## Que

Tim Godsil said:


> The age of free TV is _*not*_ ending.
> 
> _*The age of greedy broadcasters should be.*_
> 
> If you look up something called freeview, which it based in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand...
> 
> You will find that they get a lot of satellite TV channels for free.
> 
> They are not for profit like PBS.
> 
> So maybe if satellite companies turned not for profit, we wouldn't see rate hikes nearly every 2 years.
> 
> Something _*Could*_ be done about the cost of satellite TV and cable. Instead of biting the bullet and paying more, we need to protest it.
> 
> If everyone quit paying their bill, pretty soon Satellite and Cable Companies would began to loose money, maybe getting them to rethink their budget.
> 
> If you don't want to listen to me, and continue paying more and more every 2 years, until the point where you have to take up a second job just to pay your bill, that's fine. All we are doing it feeding the pig.
> 
> But I think it's time for a change.


It's every year....not 2.

1998 Total choice PLATINUM 47.99
1999 Total Choice $29.99
2000 Total Choice $31.99
2003 Total Choice $33.99
2004 Total Choice $36.99
2005 Total Choice $41.99
2006 Total Choice $44.99
2007 Total $47.99 ($3 + $9.99 HD)
2008 Total Choice $50.99
2009 Total Choice $53.99 $6 dvr $ 5 ex rev


----------



## RACJ2

babzog said:


> So the price structure and fee hike is okay because they rape us slightly less roughly than other media bullies? Just because something is an "industry practice" doesn't justify said practice. Unfortunately, too many are against legislators stepping in and occasionally giving the landscape a shakeup. There is such a thing as corporate abuse of consumers and the argument of "let the free market dictate", is not valid 100% of the time. What I don't get is why more people don't consider this outrageous and demand a change. Years ago, you'd spend $300 or more for equipment, made by Sony, RCA and others, but it was _yours_. You owned it, lock, stock and barrel. Now, you spend $200 and you wind up with nothing at the end! And this is considered progress?


I understand you disagree, but that's my opinion on it. Most any business is going to raise prices to cover additional expenses like raises, price increases from suppliers, etc. I do think that they should lock in the price during your 2 year commitment though. And then after the commitment is up, allow you to lock in you 2 more years if you chose to do so.

On the DVR's, you do have the option to buy a DVR if you choose to do so. You can buy one for $400 and then you own it [Link]. Personally, I chose to go with the promo, get one free DVR and paid $199 for the second. I didn't think it was worth an additional $600 upfront, just to own outdated equipment after 2 years. Again, you don't have to agree, just my philosophy. I'm curious, why didn't you buy the DVR's if you didn't like leasing?


----------



## Jeremy W

Smthkd said:


> This is why companies like D* can get away with sticking their hands in everyones pockets because so many synical people out there tolerate their business practices.


I am definitely a cynic, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with most of DirecTV's (or TV providers in general) practices.


----------



## jjohns

Worst of all, the current HR20 has digressed to almost as bad as it was when it was first introduced. The audio blips have never been solved, and now the picture freezes while the hard drive thrashes, which makes some programs simply unwatchable.


----------



## Jeremy W

jjohns said:


> Worst of all, the current HR20 has digressed to almost as bad as it was when it was first introduced.


Did you _have_ an HR20 when it was first introduced? I'm talking September 2007. I don't care what problems you're having, unless your hardware is failing (which it sounds like yours might be) it's *not* as bad as it was back then.

The HR20, as it was when it launched, was an abortion. There's no doubt in my mind that DirecTV lost a few customers because of that.


----------



## joshjr

jjohns said:


> Worst of all, the current HR20 has digressed to almost as bad as it was when it was first introduced. The audio blips have never been solved, and now the picture freezes while the hard drive thrashes, which makes some programs simply unwatchable.


Maybe for you. I have a HR20 and I don't have those problems.


----------



## pfp

RACJ2 said:


> On the monthly charges for DVRs & receivers, at least its only $5 for each additional receiver/DVR and a $6 DVR charge/account. As others have mentioned, with cable you pay a DVR charge for each DVR. My parents pay $7.33/mo for the DVR hardware and $7.95 for the DVR service. So each DVR costs $15.28. Even with the D* price hike, if you have one HD receiver and one DVR, the DVR only costs $12/mo (5+7). If you have 2 DVR's, they average $8.50/mo (10+7/2). So for me I prefer D*'s pricing over cable.


With cable you pay for the receiver every month instead of all upfront like DirecTV. The per account DVR fee with DirecTV vs the fee per DVR with cable is probably one ofthe biggest difference I see (at least for those of us with _a few_  DVR's)


----------



## jjohns

I have had mine since the introduction. And I've sadly had to weather all of the countless upgrades, fixes, and whatever-you-want-to-call-thems. I've read the countless D* fans who supposedly and strangely "don't have any problems at all with their receivers". Yet they are forced to endure scores of software intrusions on their "perfect" boxes. (Boy, you would think those constant changes to already perfect versions would at the very least be mildly annoying)

Now the same who claimed they no problems at all with their early-entrant dvr's now readily admit that the original boxes contained multiple bugs, but the product now is just fine. Well, it's not. It started out buggy and it's buggy now. After 3 years and legions of software versions, it is abhorrent that D* after now years of experience, is still providing a product that stutters, thrashes and freezes - and now up the price of content. If only someone else had the Sunday Ticket.


----------



## Doug Brott

corpx said:


> This blows. The only TV I watch is Live Sports. I can download anything else I want from the internet. So basically, I'll be paying $80+ a month to watch like 6 channels.
> 
> What bull****. It'll be a lot cheaper to switch back to the cable bundle(s).
> 
> That said, does this increase all you to get out of your contract?


The cost of being a sports junkie .. Certainly if it weren't worth it to you, you'd move to 100% Internet viewing. You can find a significant amount of sports programming available on the Internet these days. It's all in how you want to pay for it.


----------



## Doug Brott

jjohns said:


> Worst of all, the current HR20 has digressed to almost as bad as it was when it was first introduced. The audio blips have never been solved, and now the picture freezes while the hard drive thrashes, which makes some programs simply unwatchable.


No way .. no how .. doesn't matter what you say. You may very well be having problems that annoy you to no end, but the HR20 of today is not even in the same city as the HR20 of late 2006 .. let alone the same ballpark.


----------



## Doug Brott

jjohns said:


> I have had mine since the introduction. And I've sadly had to weather all of the countless upgrades, fixes, and whatever-you-want-to-call-thems. I've read the countless D* fans who supposedly and strangely "don't have any problems at all with their receivers". Yet they are forced to endure scores of software intrusions on their "perfect" boxes. (Boy, you would think those constant changes to already perfect versions would at the very least be mildly annoying)
> 
> Now the same who claimed they no problems at all with their early-entrant dvr's now readily admit that the original boxes contained multiple bugs, but the product now is just fine. Well, it's not. It started out buggy and it's buggy now. After 3 years and legions of software versions, it is abhorrent that D* after now years of experience, is still providing a product that stutters, thrashes and freezes - and now up the price of content. If only someone else had the Sunday Ticket.


Get ready for another software intrusion in the coming weeks .. Might as well prepare now because it's gonna happen.


----------



## BattleScott

Tim Godsil said:


> The age of free TV is _*not*_ ending.
> 
> _*The age of greedy broadcasters should be.*_
> 
> If you look up something called freeview, which it based in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand...
> 
> You will find that they get a lot of satellite TV channels for free.
> 
> They are not for profit like PBS.
> 
> So maybe if satellite companies turned not for profit, we wouldn't see rate hikes nearly every 2 years.
> 
> Something _*Could*_ be done about the cost of satellite TV and cable. Instead of biting the bullet and paying more, we need to protest it.
> 
> If everyone quit paying their bill, pretty soon Satellite and Cable Companies would began to loose money, maybe getting them to rethink their budget.
> 
> If you don't want to listen to me, and continue paying more and more every 2 years, until the point where you have to take up a second job just to pay your bill, that's fine. All we are doing it feeding the pig.
> 
> But I think it's time for a change.


Only IF you buy a Freeview compatible box or TV. And the *channel selection *isn't worth free (unless you are an open-minded leporid, i suppose...).


----------



## pfp

My solution this year - bye, bye Starz.


----------



## wsmc831

Doug Brott said:


> No way .. no how .. doesn't matter what you say. You may very well be having problems that annoy you to no end, but the HR20 of today is not even in the same city as the HR20 of late 2006 .. let alone the same ballpark.


Just features?

I'm a rarity. Had my HR20 3 weeks after they were offered in my area (SF Bay area) and still have it years later. Everyone else I know that got one is on their third (at least).

Though, Dave changed my locals suddenly last month which took away MY locals along with networks in HD, the new locals don't come in well, AND Dave is raising my rates? After 11+ years (even through the 'testing' times) I believe it's Dish's chance...at least they offer my lousy locals in HD.


----------



## Sim-X

Bring back the h-card! lol


----------



## Jeremy W

Sim-X said:


> Bring back the h-card! lol


Yeah... I'm going to take a wild and crazy guess and say they won't be doing that.


----------



## Shades228

Tim Godsil said:


> The age of free TV is _*not*_ ending.
> 
> _*The age of greedy broadcasters should be.*_
> 
> If you look up something called freeview, which it based in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand...
> 
> You will find that they get a lot of satellite TV channels for free.
> 
> They are not for profit like PBS.
> 
> So maybe if satellite companies turned not for profit, we wouldn't see rate hikes nearly every 2 years.
> 
> Something _*Could*_ be done about the cost of satellite TV and cable. Instead of biting the bullet and paying more, we need to protest it.
> 
> If everyone quit paying their bill, pretty soon Satellite and Cable Companies would began to loose money, maybe getting them to rethink their budget.
> 
> If you don't want to listen to me, and continue paying more and more every 2 years, until the point where you have to take up a second job just to pay your bill, that's fine. All we are doing it feeding the pig.
> 
> But I think it's time for a change.


All of those countries have pay TV options as well.

Try these steps:

Go through your home and write down everything that you have purchased from a non profit company. Then see how many of them give you the same entertainment value as watching TV for the same period of time. So if you have a ribbon, for breast cancer awareness or for troop support, watch that for as long as you would normally watch tv.

Suspend your service and watch PBS exclusively for that time only. Then tell me that a NFP system provides the same value that you get from your top watched channel from now.

You could take your own advice and cancel service therefor stop feeding the pig.

One day perhaps the amount of TV I subscribe to today will be outside the realm I am willing to pay. Then I will do the same thing I do now when I go to buy a Bugatti Veyron. I buy something that I enjoy that I can pay for within my budgett.


----------



## schlar01

I'm getting real sick of this. Even in the worst economy in the last 50 years they find a way to keep raising rates.


----------



## Jeremy W

schlar01 said:


> I'm getting real sick of this. Even in the worst economy in the last 50 years they find a way to keep raising rates.


How did they find a way? From what I can tell, they're doing it the exact same way they've been doing it since their inception. And last time I checked, you were free to reduce your service to compensate, even if you're still in contract. If you're not willing to do that, then you have no right to use the economy as a reason DirecTV shouldn't raise rates.

If you really can't afford the rate increase, either compensate by reducing service or you're full of crap. It's that simple. There is a large difference between being unhappy about the rate increase (which is where most people fall) and being unable to afford the rate increase.


----------



## RACJ2

pfp said:


> With cable you pay for the receiver every month instead of all upfront like DirecTV. The per account DVR fee with DirecTV vs the fee per DVR with cable is probably one ofthe biggest difference I see (at least for those of us with _a few_  DVR's)


True, I forgot to factor that in. With the promo, I received 1 DVR for free, so my 2 DVR's had an average cost of $99 or $4.13/mo annualized over the 2 yr commitment. So with the 2010 price increase my 2 DVR's have an average cost of $10/mo (5+7+4+4)/2. After 2 years in Sept 2010, they will cost me an average $6 (5+7)/2 (not counting any 2011 price increase). In either case, its cheaper then the monthlies on the cable DVR's.


----------



## schlar01

Jeremy W said:


> How did they find a way? From what I can tell, they're doing it the exact same way they've been doing it since their inception. And last time I checked, you were free to reduce your service to compensate, even if you're still in contract. If you're not willing to do that, then you have no right to use the economy as a reason DirecTV shouldn't raise rates.
> 
> If you really can't afford the rate increase, either compensate by reducing service or you're full of crap. It's that simple. There is a large difference between being unhappy about the rate increase (which is where most people fall) and being unable to afford the rate increase.


Most companies don't raise prices at the worst time..........Great job of DirecTV giving people less for more.........I'm sure that is will be a great strategy for the long-term.

I wish Congress would get off their asses and get us ala carte and non-monopolistic sports packages (NFL ticket). At least then I could go to a different provider and get a better price and not lose service.


----------



## RACJ2

Doug Brott said:


> Get ready for another software intrusion in the coming weeks .. Might as well prepare now because it's gonna happen.


Can you give us any advance info on what the next software intrusion may bring?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I expect that it will bring additional stability and under-the-hood improvements


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stuart Sweet said:


> I expect that it will bring additional stability and under-the-hood improvements


:lol: Somebody's "in a mood". :lol:


----------



## Jeremy W

schlar01 said:


> Most companies don't raise prices at the worst time


DirecTV is a TV service provider, and every TV service provider is raising their rates. It doesn't matter what "most companies" do, it matters what the companies in DirecTV's industry do.


schlar01 said:


> Great job of DirecTV giving people less for more


You're missing one channel


schlar01 said:


> I'm sure that is will be a great strategy for the long-term.


And I'm sure that it's not a long-term strategy in the first place.


schlar01 said:


> I wish Congress would get off their asses and get us ala carte and non-monopolistic sports packages (NFL ticket). At least then I could go to a different provider and get a better price and not lose service.


NFLST is not monopolistic, it's an example of pure capitalism. DirecTV was willing to pay a price that no cable company (or GROUP of cable companies) was willing to match. You have no right to subscribe to NFLST, so the government shouldn't get involved. Aside from that, who's to say that you'd get a better price with a different provider? It's not like TV rates vary in any significant way between providers, so why would NFLST be any different?


----------



## jdh8668

Satelliteracer said:


> The rights for sports are huge, thus ESPN charges MSOs more and more each year. And on and on. There hasn't been any "settling of prices" in the industry, quite the contrary. And like any business, when your costs go up (in this case the price of programming), then your prices go up to cover those costs. QUOTE]
> And why are ESPN's costs going up? It's because MLB & the NFL have to make their money back after their crazy owners agree to pay average athletes millions of dollars per year, and above average athletes stratospheric sums. The consumer is slowly starting to speak with his/her wallet. MLB attendance was down 6% in 2009.


----------



## Jeremy W

jdh8668 said:


> The consumer is slowly starting to speak with his/her wallet.


And if consumers continue to speak with their wallets in larger numbers, there will be an effect. If consumers continue to speak with only their mouths or fingers, there will continue to be no reason for anyone involved to do anything differently.


----------



## Shades228

schlar01 said:


> Most companies don't raise prices at the worst time..........Great job of DirecTV giving people less for more.........I'm sure that is will be a great strategy for the long-term.
> 
> I wish Congress would get off their asses and get us ala carte and non-monopolistic sports packages (NFL ticket). At least then I could go to a different provider and get a better price and not lose service.


I've never heard of a good time to raise prices. I'm sure even in the best economical times you could find the same posts when it comes to price increases.

Should congress regulate how much it costs for milk too? The price keeps going up. Ok since that was entertainment related should they regulate the cost of concessions at a movie theater?

NFL isn't a monopoly and that has been beaten to death. Name one national provider with the ability to deliver all of the games like DirecTV does.


----------



## Jeremy W

Shades228 said:


> Name one national provider with the ability to deliver all of the games like DirecTV does.


If they were able to offer NFLST, I don't think any provider would have trouble finding the space on their system to do so.


----------



## pfp

RACJ2 said:


> In either case, its cheaper then the monthlies on the cable DVR's.


Agreed. Even if paying full (lease) price for the DirecTV HD DVR it's only a bit more than a year before the it's cheaper than the monthly HD DVR (hardware only) fee.


----------



## Doug Brott

wsmc831 said:


> Just features?
> 
> I'm a rarity. Had my HR20 3 weeks after they were offered in my area (SF Bay area) and still have it years later. Everyone else I know that got one is on their third (at least).
> 
> Though, Dave changed my locals suddenly last month which took away MY locals along with networks in HD, the new locals don't come in well, AND Dave is raising my rates? After 11+ years (even through the 'testing' times) I believe it's Dish's chance...at least they offer my lousy locals in HD.


Who's Dave and why is he taking YOUR locals away?


----------



## Jeremy W

Doug Brott said:


> Who's Dave and why is he taking YOUR locals away?


I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but Dave is Digital Audio Video Entertainment, aka DirecTV in "tester" speak.


----------



## tronn

does this price increase constitute a material change in my 2 year agreement with directv?
i so dearly want to show them how loud my wallet speaks


----------



## CJTE

tronn said:


> does this price increase constitute a material change in my 2 year agreement with directv?
> i so dearly want to show them how loud my wallet speaks


Unlike cellular service contracts, DirecTV is free to raise the price of any package as much as they want. Your options are to subscribe to a lower tier package, or cancel your account and pay the Early Termination Fee.


----------



## hp123

family package will be same price 29.99?....i donot see anywhere increase price for family package?

thanks
hp


----------



## CJTE

hp123 said:


> family package will be same price 29.99?....i donot see anywhere increase price for family package?
> 
> thanks
> hp


Yes, the Family Package will remain 29.99
DirecTV won't increase it or they wouldnt be able to run specials about their low 29.99 plan


----------



## SoCool

Jeremy W said:


> I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but Dave is Digital Audio Video Entertainment, aka DirecTV in "tester" speak.


Haven't heard that one in a long while.:lol:


----------



## Lord Vader

A _very _long time.


----------



## kevinwmsn

We need Hal to tell Dave don't do it... D* is also going to add a ton HD this year, I bet it could be part of the contracts with the channels themselves.


----------



## tronn

crimeny!

first sign of any more news channels or stewpid sales channels (hsn and the like) im ponying (spell check) up for the early termination fee


----------



## Doug Brott

tronn said:


> crimeny!
> 
> first sign of any more news channels or stewpid sales channels (hsn and the like) im ponying (spell check) up for the early termination fee


Remember those stewpid (sic) sales channels actually pony up their own money to be on DIRECTV thus keeping your bill from being any higher .. personally I hope a few more want to sign on.


----------



## wingrider01

schlar01 said:


> Most companies don't raise prices at the worst time..........Great job of DirecTV giving people less for more.........I'm sure that is will be a great strategy for the long-term.
> 
> I wish Congress would get off their asses and get us ala carte and non-monopolistic sports packages (NFL ticket). At least then I could go to a different provider and get a better price and not lose service.


really? "most companies don't raise prices at the worst time"

Looks through the Janurary bills

electric company - rate increase
gas company - rate increase
water company - rate increase
trash pick up - rate increase
sewer service - rate increase
phone company - rate increase

These are the bills that I have recieved for the start of January, suspect the rest will be the same way. What companies are you doing business with?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

wingrider01 said:


> really? "most companies don't raise prices at the worst time"
> 
> Looks through the Janurary bills
> 
> electric company - rate increase
> gas company - rate increase
> water company - rate increase
> trash pick up - rate increase
> sewer service - rate increase
> phone company - rate increase
> 
> These are the bills that I have recieved for the start of January, suspect the rest will be the same way. What companies are you doing business with?


And unfortunately, you can't cancel, or live without, any of those.


----------



## pfp

wingrider01 said:


> really? "most companies don't raise prices at the worst time"
> 
> Looks through the Janurary bills
> 
> electric company - rate increase
> gas company - rate increase
> water company - rate increase
> trash pick up - rate increase
> sewer service - rate increase
> phone company - rate increase
> 
> These are the bills that I have recieved for the start of January, suspect the rest will be the same way. What companies are you doing business with?


and what do you know - they are all monopolies


----------



## Shades228

pfp said:


> and what do you know - they are all monopolies


Other than sewer/water none of those are monopolies where I live.


----------



## trainman

Shades228 said:


> Should congress regulate how much it costs for milk too? The price keeps going up.


This is a bad example -- Congress doesn't regulate the price of milk on a Federal level, but many states _do_ regulate the price of milk within the state. (Not necessarily for the consumer's benefit, either -- it's basically a subsidy for dairy farmers.)


----------



## Stuart Sweet

This isn't really a thread about farm subsidies. Let's move on, thanks.


----------



## schlar01

wingrider01 said:


> really? "most companies don't raise prices at the worst time"
> 
> Looks through the Janurary bills
> 
> electric company - rate increase
> gas company - rate increase
> water company - rate increase
> trash pick up - rate increase
> sewer service - rate increase
> phone company - rate increase
> 
> These are the bills that I have recieved for the start of January, suspect the rest will be the same way. What companies are you doing business with?


None of those went up for me.

My US Cellular bill has been the same forever.

The water rates went up 2 years ago after being constant for a decade.

Gas/electric has stayed constant or had a very small increase from Xcel this year, largely because the price is regulated.

For those that don't understand monopolies, milk is available from hundreds, if not thousands of producers and suppliers around the country. The ticket is available from 1.


----------



## wingrider01

pfp said:


> and what do you know - they are all monopolies


Maybe in your area, but we have phone, electric and gas choices.


----------



## BubblePuppy

Stuart Sweet said:


> This isn't really a thread about farm subsidies. Let's move on, thanks.


Oh I don't know about that Stuart, many companies are continually grabbing us by our teats and milking us for all that they can.


----------



## Jeremy W

schlar01 said:


> For those that don't understand monopolies, milk is available from hundreds, if not thousands of producers and suppliers around the country. The ticket is available from 1.


Yes, DirecTV has a monopoly on NFLST. But nobody forced it to be that way, cable decided they didn't want to pay for it. It's not like cable service monopolies in most cities, where there are actual laws preventing competition.


----------



## schlar01

Jeremy W said:


> Yes, DirecTV has a monopoly on NFLST. But nobody forced it to be that way, cable decided they didn't want to pay for it. It's not like cable service monopolies in most cities, where there are actual laws preventing competition.


The NFL, in fact, did force it to be that way. They all had a chance to bid, but it was always going to be available to only 1 provider in each market. Cable companies rarely compete within markets in my experience. The NFL routinely signs monopolistic deals. EA's Madden used to compete with NFL2K, but the NFL decided to make that an exclusive deal, too. That exclusivity has largely created a fairly poor offering from EA. This year's was a little better, but without the competition pushing them, they have little incentive to TRULY improve the product.

The best system for consumers is to have it available on multiple satellite and cable providers so that consumers have choice in where they can go and don't have to lose their NFL games. Right now the NFL and DirecTV just hold those games as hostages.

Competition and choice is better for consumers.....PERIOD. There is debate on that topic.


----------



## Jeremy W

schlar01 said:


> The NFL, in fact, did force it to be that way. They all had a chance to bid, but it was always going to be available to only 1 provider in each market.


When DirecTV placed their bid, cable was allowed the chance to match it. They declined. How did the NFL force anything?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jeremy W said:


> When DirecTV placed their bid, cable was allowed the chance to match it. They declined. *How did the NFL force anything*?


They didn't...it went to the highest bidder, as you correctly stated several times now....


----------



## babzog

RACJ2 said:


> I understand you disagree, but that's my opinion on it. Most any business is going to raise prices to cover additional expenses like raises, price increases from suppliers, etc. I do think that they should lock in the price during your 2 year commitment though. And then after the commitment is up, allow you to lock in you 2 more years if you chose to do so.
> 
> On the DVR's, you do have the option to buy a DVR if you choose to do so. You can buy one for $400 and then you own it [Link]. Personally, I chose to go with the promo, get one free DVR and paid $199 for the second. I didn't think it was worth an additional $600 upfront, just to own outdated equipment after 2 years. Again, you don't have to agree, just my philosophy. I'm curious, why didn't you buy the DVR's if you didn't like leasing?


Primarily due to a virtual lack of a warranty. That and like you, I don't want to spend a huge sum of money for equipment that'll be obsolete before my commitment is up. That said, that equipment which I just paid $200 for, isn't mine. I can't ebay it when I'm finished with it, I can't give it to a neighbor, I have no way to recoup the $200 (unless I successfully negotiate credits with the service provider). What I should (only) be paying for is the service. DirecTV should be supplying the equipment to permit me access to the service for which I'm paying. If I want to buy the equipment, absolving DTV of ownership responsibilities, that's great for them (and probably not so great for me in the long term). If I don't want to buy it, then the onus should be solely on them to supply and support it.

I understand this isn't the way equipment supply works in many industries (ie: cable modems are "rented", etc) and I've never agreed with those costs either. If the equipment isn't mine but you require me to house it and power it and connect it to my equipment in order to access the service, then you, not I, should be responsible for all aspects of it - costs, support, replacement, etc.



Ext 721 said:



> I read an article recently that the big networks (abc, nbc, cbs, fox) are barely turning a profit.
> 
> Free TV based on advertising is dying.
> 
> the advertising part of the cable-channel income is lagging.
> 
> they need to charge more to cable/sat co's to make up for it.
> in turn, the cable/sat co's charge more to consumers.


I've heard this from local affiliates who cry that they're losing money. They claim that carriers (cable, satellite, etc) are "making money" from carriage of their signal and that they should be entitled to a share of that. If their business model is so flawed that they now require a brand new source of revenue in order to remain viable, then I submit that their business plan is seriously flawed.

The customers of the carriers are just that - customers of the carriers, not of the individual stations. The cable, satellite and other carriers designed and built their networks, paid for their networks and install (into client premises) and maintain those networks. The affiliates, IMO, should be paying the carriers for access to the network and customer base, not the other way round (I know that's not the way it's being setup to work these days, it's just my opinion). If the affiliates can't survive without that revenue, then they should either charge more for advertising, find another revenue stream, or declare bankruptcy and close up operations.


----------



## schlar01

Jeremy W said:


> When DirecTV placed their bid, cable was allowed the chance to match it. They declined. How did the NFL force anything?


As I said before, it was always going to be ONE provider. Do you get that? It doesn't matter who the provider is............it still a monopoly. The NFL is known for requiring exclusive deals because it pushes the price higher.


----------



## BattleScott

schlar01 said:


> As I said before, it was always going to be ONE provider. Do you get that? It doesn't matter who the provider is............it still a monopoly. The NFL is known for requiring exclusive deals because it pushes the price higher.


But the "product" in this case is NFL Football which is available to the masses on the National Broadcast channels that require no subscription to any service. The Sunday Ticket is strictly an "out-of-market" specialty package that the NFL makes available with the agreement of those broadcasters. Considering that NFL games are carried every week on the OTA CBS, FOX, ABC networks and the widely available ESPN and NFL cable networks, I would hardly consider NFL broadcasts to be any sort of a monopoly. In truth, as far as the major sports go, I would consider the NFL to one of the most "non-exclusive" orginizations in that regard.


----------



## schlar01

BattleScott said:


> But the "product" in this case is NFL Football which is available to the masses on the National Broadcast channels that require no subscription to any service. The Sunday Ticket is strictly an "out-of-market" specialty package that the NFL makes available with the agreement of those broadcasters. Considering that NFL games are carried every week on the OTA CBS, FOX, ABC networks and the widely available ESPN and NFL cable networks, I would hardly consider NFL broadcasts to be any sort of a monopoly. In truth, as far as the major sports go, I would consider the NFL to one of the most "non-exclusive" orginizations in that regard.


Absurd. If that is the case, then the Ticket isn't needed at all, and the NFLST should be dissolved.

The package itself is still a monopoly........that can't be argued..........PERIOD. End of discussion.

The product is the NFLST, not the NFL as a whole. Just absurd.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think that stretches the definition of "monopoly." It's an exclusive product. Exclusive products are not against the law. New Chevrolets are only sold through Chevrolet dealers. Insignia TVs are only sold at Best Buy. It's the same thing.


----------



## Skyboss

wingrider01 said:


> really? "most companies don't raise prices at the worst time"
> 
> Looks through the Janurary bills
> 
> electric company - rate increase
> gas company - rate increase
> water company - rate increase
> trash pick up - rate increase
> sewer service - rate increase
> phone company - rate increase
> 
> These are the bills that I have recieved for the start of January, suspect the rest will be the same way. What companies are you doing business with?


electric company - Even
gas company - Down
water company - Even
trash pick up - Even
sewer service - NA - Included in Water
phone company - Down


----------



## Skyboss

BattleScott said:


> But the "product" in this case is NFL Football which is available to the masses on the National Broadcast channels that require no subscription to any service. The Sunday Ticket is strictly an "out-of-market" specialty package that the NFL makes available with the agreement of those broadcasters. Considering that NFL games are carried every week on the OTA CBS, FOX, ABC networks and the widely available ESPN and NFL cable networks, I would hardly consider NFL broadcasts to be any sort of a monopoly. In truth, as far as the major sports go, I would consider the NFL to one of the most "non-exclusive" orginizations in that regard.


The product is Sunday Ticket. It is a monopoly in that no-one else can provide it. If it were available on every service provider, it would be cheaper - a lot cheaper. Period. The NFL has anti-trust immunity which is why they can have an exclusive provider. DirecTV bids what it wants then shafts the consumer with enormous cost increases. Payback is coming.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2690171


----------



## paulman182

Skyboss said:


> The product is Sunday Ticket. It is a monopoly in that no-one else can provide it. If it were available on every service provider, it would be cheaper - a lot cheaper. Period.


Maybe not. Somebody would have to pay for all the hardware necessary for all the different cable companies to pick it up and distribute it. It would be hugely expensive for the providers to get it up and running.

And how many service providers would have the bandwidth to offer it?


----------



## sigma1914

Skyboss said:


> The product is Sunday Ticket. It is a monopoly in that no-one else can provide it. If it were available on every service provider, it would be cheaper - a lot cheaper. Period. The NFL has anti-trust immunity which is why they can have an exclusive provider. DirecTV bids what it wants then shafts the consumer with enormous cost increases. Payback is coming.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2690171


It's more of a monopsony than a monopoly.

:lol: Nice article....only 3 years old.


----------



## schlar01

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think that stretches the definition of "monopoly." It's an exclusive product. Exclusive products are not against the law. New Chevrolets are only sold through Chevrolet dealers. Insignia TVs are only sold at Best Buy. It's the same thing.


TVs and cars are commodities with nearly identical replacement products from hundreds/thousands of other suppliers. Not exactly what I'd call a similar situation.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Skyboss, I must take issue with your use of the word "monopoly" here. While it's possible to stretch the definition of the word to include a commodity or service with a single provider, the connotation is that the single provider is the monopoly, and the product is the means by which they act as a monopoly. 

I agree that it's common parlance to say, "Edison has a monopoly on electricity," and equate that to "DIRECTV has a monopoly on Sunday Ticket." I do understand that. However, you're adding a negative shading to the perfectly legal practice of awarding exclusive contracts. 

While the term "monopoly" is in itself neutral, it's often perceived as a negative thing. Even when "legal monopolies" are allowed to exist, using the word "legal" implies that the government has allowed an otherwise unacceptable entity to exist. 

Remember also that the term "monopoly" implies that the monopolistic entity controls both production and distribution of something, which is not true in this case. The NFL is the producer and DIRECTV is the exclusive distributor. 

There are limitless cases where exclusive contracts are awarded to distributors, all perfectly legal. In my opinion there is no reason to claim, either by implication or outright, that DIRECTV's exclusive carriage of Sunday Ticket is illegal or unethical. 

Simply put, try substituting "exclusive" for "monopoly." It's a far less inflammatory term.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

schlar01 said:


> TVs and cars are commodities with nearly identical replacement products from hundreds/thousands of other suppliers. Not exactly what I'd call a similar situation.


You are claiming that somehow Sunday Ticket is special and irreplaceable. To someone with an affinity for Chevrolets, there is no substitution that will suffice. I submit that Sunday Ticket is one form of sports programming and there are many other forms of sports programming.

I get it, you like your NFL team, but I don't see it as an antitrust issue.


----------



## Jeremy W

schlar01 said:


> As I said before, it was always going to be ONE provider. Do you get that?


What you're saying contradicts all public statements by the parties involved. Do you have any proof to back this up, or is this just a conspiracy theory?


----------



## sigma1914

To those claiming the ST is a monopoly and soooo bad...I pose this scenario:

You've created a new hot sauce. This hot sauce is so good it puts all others to shame and people want to buy it, now! Then, a big company calls you and says, "We want your product in ONLY our restaurants & we'll pay you $4 billion to ONLY supply our firm. Deal?" Are you going to decline because, "I want my sauce available in every restaurant, where it'd be cheaper - a lot cheaper, & I'd never make near $4 billion."

Hell no! You'd sign right up!


----------



## Stuart Sweet

And that would be a legal, exclusive contract as I understand it.


----------



## Jeremy W

Stuart Sweet said:


> And that would be a legal, exclusive contract as I understand it.


Of course it would. This whole argument is ridiculous. There is one way to get NFLST. If you don't like that way, then you don't get NFLST. If you don't like the restaurant that has the exclusivity on the awesome hot sauce, then you don't get the awesome hot sauce. Simple.


----------



## Beerstalker

Yep, no different than the iphone only being available on AT&T. Apple said they were designing a phone and went out to all the cellular providers. Verizon wanted to make certain demands that Apple wouldn't agree to so they went to AT&T, who didn't make those demands. They signed a contract and AT&T is the only one to have the iPhone. When that contract is up Verizon will probably have the ability to get the iPhone, as long as they don't try making more demands that Apple won't agree to, or as long as AT&T doesn't offer Apple more money to keep it on their network only.

When DirecTV's contract for NFL Sunday ticket is up, Comcast, Dish, everyone will be able to bid on it. If one company bids higher than the others and says it wants exclusive rights, then the NFL may sign a contract with them only.

I would much rather have it this way than the total chaos of some other sports like hockey/baseball where certain companies own a team and a channel and only offer that teams games on that channel and then don't allow all services to carry that channel.


----------



## sigma1914

Stuart Sweet said:


> And that would be a legal, exclusive contract as I understand it.





Jeremy W said:


> Of course it would. This whole argument is ridiculous. There is one way to get NFLST. If you don't like that way, then you don't get NFLST. If you don't like the restaurant that has the exclusivity on the awesome hot sauce, then you don't get the awesome hot sauce. Simple.


Bingo! It's like people think Directv is forcing them to buy ST.


----------



## Jeremy W

Beerstalker said:


> as long as AT&T doesn't offer Apple more money to keep it on their network only.


AT&T already tried that, and Apple told them where they could stick their money. :lol: They're tired of having their brand damaged by AT&T's incompetence.


----------



## Justin23

Skyboss said:


> The product is Sunday Ticket. It is a monopoly in that no-one else can provide it. If it were available on every service provider, it would be cheaper - a lot cheaper. Period. The NFL has anti-trust immunity which is why they can have an exclusive provider. DirecTV bids what it wants then shafts the consumer with enormous cost increases. Payback is coming.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2690171


Question...how hard is it to move the gun that D* is holding to your head FORCING you to get NFL ST before typing your posts?

:beatdeadhorse:

Oher providers could have outbid D* for NFL ST, but they did not.


----------



## Beerstalker

Jeremy W said:


> AT&T already tried that, and Apple told them where they could stick their money. :lol: They're tired of having their brand damaged by AT&T's incompetence.


I heard rumors that was the case but hadn't heard anything solid yet.


----------



## Jeremy W

Beerstalker said:


> I heard rumors that was the case but hadn't heard anything solid yet.


It's always going to be just rumors until Steve unveils the product. There was a solid rumor a month or two ago that the next iPhone would have a dual GSM/CDMA chipset, and there's really only one reason for that...


----------



## wingrider01

Jeremy W said:


> AT&T already tried that, and Apple told them where they could stick their money. :lol: They're tired of having their brand damaged by AT&T's incompetence.


haven't seen that publicly stated by apple yet, but have seen public statements that the other other companies offering the Iphone are hainvg network utilization issues also.


----------



## Jeremy W

wingrider01 said:


> haven't seen that publicly stated by apple yet


Like I said, you're not going to. Apple isn't that type of company. The very first indication you're going to have that AT&T's exclusivity is over is when Steve announces that the iPhone will be available on both AT&T and Verizon. Until that moment, it'll all be rumor.


----------



## JLucPicard

schlar01 said:


> Absurd. If that is the case, then the Ticket isn't needed at all, and the NFLST should be dissolved.
> 
> The package itself is still a monopoly........that can't be argued..........PERIOD. End of discussion.
> 
> The product is the NFLST, not the NFL as a whole. Just absurd.


I love people that feel if they state their case with more emphasis or louder and louder that they feel that makes it true.

DirecTV: We'll pay you four billion over the next seven years to carry Sunday Ticket.
NFL: OK, Dish Network, cable, do any of you want to match that to carry it, too?
Dish Network, cable, etc.: Hell No. (or dead silence, whichever the case may be),
NFL: Very well. DirecTV, you have the exclusive rights for the next seven years.

I don't see anything at all monopolistic about that. PERIOD! 

I don't really see this as any different than Stern being exclusive to Sirius/XM. Or maybe even more representative, Stern being exclusively on Sirius while XM was still a separate company.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

JLucPicard said:


> I love people that feel if they state their case with more emphasis or louder and louder that they feel that makes it true.
> 
> DirecTV: We'll pay you four billion over the next seven years to carry Sunday Ticket.
> NFL: OK, Dish Network, cable, do any of you want to match that to carry it, too?
> Dish Network, cable, etc.: Hell No. (or dead silence, whichever the case may be),
> NFL: Very well. DirecTV, you have the exclusive rights for the next seven years.
> 
> I don't see anything at all monopolistic about that. PERIOD!
> 
> I don't really see this as any different than Stern being exclusive to Sirius/XM. Or maybe even more representative, Stern being exclusively on Sirius while XM was still a separate company.


Agreed.

It's called Free Enterprise, Capitalism, or Survival of the Competitive Fittest.

Those naysayers just need to deal with it.


----------



## joshjr

JLucPicard said:


> I love people that feel if they state their case with more emphasis or louder and louder that they feel that makes it true.
> 
> DirecTV: We'll pay you four billion over the next seven years to carry Sunday Ticket.
> NFL: OK, Dish Network, cable, do any of you want to match that to carry it, too?
> Dish Network, cable, etc.: Hell No. (or dead silence, whichever the case may be),
> NFL: Very well. DirecTV, you have the exclusive rights for the next seven years.
> 
> I don't see anything at all monopolistic about that. PERIOD!
> 
> I don't really see this as any different than Stern being exclusive to Sirius/XM. Or maybe even more representative, Stern being exclusively on Sirius while XM was still a separate company.


It is kind of crazy. I mean some seem to almost be saying that if this were the food industry we are talking about that we should have the right to walk into McDonalds and order a Wendy's burger. Resutrants dont all have the same menu items, cell carries dont all have the same models of phones, cable co's dont all offer the same channels, nor do Satellite companys. I view this completely different then sports channels that Comcast hold hostage. Everyone had the chance to get Sunday Ticket. Besides isnt it the NFL that decides if they want the package to be exclusive? I mean come on if they decide they want all providers to have it then really what choice does DirecTV have? Either agree to the NFL's terms and carry Sunday Ticket or dont. Thats what happened to the other providers. Sounds like some are a little unfair in their thinking in my opinion.


----------



## Skyboss

Justin23 said:


> Oher providers could have outbid D* for NFL ST, but they did not.


No one else was dumb enough to bid that much.



joshjr said:


> Besides isnt it the NFL that decides if they want the package to be exclusive?


Yes, and the only reason this is allowed is because they have anti-trust immunity which flies in the face of all that is capitalist.



joshjr said:


> I mean some seem to almost be saying that if this were the food industry we are talking about that we should have the right to walk into McDonalds and order a Wendy's burger. Resutrants dont all have the same menu items, cell carries dont all have the same models of phones, cable co's dont all offer the same channels, nor do Satellite companys.


Not the same.


----------



## Justin23

Skyboss said:


> No one else was dumb enough to bid that much.
> 
> Yes, and the only reason this is allowed is because they have anti-trust immunity which flies in the face of all that is capitalist.
> 
> Not the same.


Well...then go complain to the other providers that chose not to bid enough for NFL ST...:nono2:


----------



## joshjr

Skyboss said:


> No one else was dumb enough to bid that much.
> 
> Yes, and the only reason this is allowed is because they have anti-trust immunity which flies in the face of all that is capitalist.
> 
> Not the same.


Why arnt you complaining about the March Madness package or the Nascar Hotpass package or the MLB Extra Innings package? Are you not on the MLB because some providers offer it but not all? Is that far to offer it to some but not all in your opinion since you dont like that ST is exclusive. Kind of sounds like you want to make up your own rules to me. As for my examples some are pretty good. Like it was said earlier AT&T dont own Apple but the iPhone is exclusive to only AT&T. DirecTV dont own the NFL or Sunday Ticket but its exclusive to them. If you really feel it then you need to be saying the NFL is a monopoly not D*.


----------



## Skyboss

joshjr said:


> Why arnt you complaining about the March Madness package or the Nascar Hotpass package or the MLB Extra Innings package? Are you not on the MLB because some providers offer it but not all? .


Try to sort out your apples from the oranges.


----------



## joshjr

Skyboss said:


> Try to sort out your apples from the oranges.


What ever. All I know is that I will be enjoying the games next year. When you come to a Sunday you miss a game you really want to see remember you are not watching it cause you were to cheap to pay $2.06 more a week for 17 weeks of Sunday Ticket. Enjoy your money I know I will enjoy the way mine is spent.


----------



## Piratefan98

joshjr said:


> What ever. All I know is that I will be enjoying the games next year. When you come to a Sunday you miss a game you really want to see remember you are not watching it cause you were to cheap to pay $2.06 more a week for 17 weeks of Sunday Ticket. Enjoy your money I know I will enjoy the way mine is spent.


Let me guess ..... you weren't a math major in college. :lol: :lol:

Jeff


----------



## wingrider01

Jeremy W said:


> Like I said, you're not going to. Apple isn't that type of company. The very first indication you're going to have that AT&T's exclusivity is over is when Steve announces that the iPhone will be available on both AT&T and Verizon. Until that moment, it'll all be rumor.


I agree there - but the simple fact that has ben shown is that the networks that can offer the IPhone have over-utilization issues - there is no proven fact that if T-Mobile, Verizion, Sprint get what ever future IPhone that is released their networks will not have issue with getting slammed with the bandwith the IPhone utilizes, even when it is idle.


----------



## joshjr

Piratefan98 said:


> Let me guess ..... you weren't a math major in college. :lol: :lol:
> 
> Jeff


$35 price increase divided by 17 weeks. You do the math.


----------



## CJTE

wingrider01 said:


> I agree there - but the simple fact that has ben shown is that the networks that can offer the IPhone have over-utilization issues - there is no proven fact that if T-Mobile, Verizion, Sprint get what ever future IPhone that is released their networks will not have issue with getting slammed with the bandwith the IPhone utilizes, even when it is idle.


Bullcrap.
AT&T is not the only provider that carries the iPhone. AT&T is the only provider that has data issues. T-Mobile offers the iPhone in Germany and isn't having the data issues AT&T is having. Vodafone offers the iPhone in New Zealand and they aren't capping any of it's features like AT&T is. As a matter of fact if you order an iPhone in New Zealand you'll receive a GSM unlocked version that you can take anywhere because it's actually ILLEGAL to GSM lock phones in New Zealand.

Just a heads up...
The problem in 'the states' is NOT the phone. It's the carrier.

EDIT:
Getting back on the topic of price increases.
It sucks.
Watchya gonna do about it?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Sorry for intruding....I must be in the wrong "room"...thought this thread was about the DirecTV rate changes announced for February....guess its about wireless services. Excuse me for interrupting.


----------



## RACJ2

Although I planned to do this prior the price hike, at least it will offset the rate hike cost. My Showtime with free Stars promo just ended, so I dropped them both. Dexter ended, so I won't be watching Showtime until the new season of Nurse Jackie starts in June. 

Since I have the Sports Pack now at $13, it would have cost $11/mo to keep Showtime. That means I save about $55 over the 5 months. The price hike is $4 for my Xtra HD DVR package. So the rate increase will cost me $48 over the next twelve months. Although I expected and accept the price increase, posting this mentally softens the blow for me.


----------



## joshjr

I would drop Showtime until Dexter starts back up again to but StrikeForce has put some good cards on there so I think I am gonna wait. Plus my 2 for 1 deal is not over yet.


----------



## ptuck874

RACJ2 said:


> Although I planned to do this prior the price hike, at least it will offset the rate hike cost. My Showtime with free Stars promo just ended, so I dropped them both. Dexter ended, so I won't be watching Showtime until the new season of Nurse Jackie starts in June.
> 
> Since I have the Sports Pack now at $13, it would have cost $11/mo to keep Showtime. That means I save about $55 over the 5 months. The price hike is $4 for my Xtra HD DVR package. So the rate increase will cost me $48 over the next twelve months. Although I expected and accept the price increase, posting this mentally softens the blow for me.


I thought Nurse Jackie starts back up in March?


----------



## RACJ2

ptuck874 said:


> I thought Nurse Jackie starts back up in March?


Does it? I know they were running last season soon, but I figured it would be back about the same time it premiered last year. Couldn't find any info on the actual date though.

Update: You were correct, here is info about the new season starting 3/22 [Link]. Guess I will only be saving about $30 before I re-up for Showtime.


----------



## wingrider01

CJTE said:


> Bullcrap.
> AT&T is not the only provider that carries the iPhone. AT&T is the only provider that has data issues. T-Mobile offers the iPhone in Germany and isn't having the data issues AT&T is having. Vodafone offers the iPhone in New Zealand and they aren't capping any of it's features like AT&T is. As a matter of fact if you order an iPhone in New Zealand you'll receive a GSM unlocked version that you can take anywhere because it's actually ILLEGAL to GSM lock phones in New Zealand.
> 
> Just a heads up...
> The problem in 'the states' is NOT the phone. It's the carrier.
> 
> EDIT:
> Getting back on the topic of price increases.
> It sucks.
> Watchya gonna do about it?


really?

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/o2-apologizes-for-sketchy-iphone-service-in-london.ars

http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/o2-blames-iphone-demand-for-network-failures-2890


----------



## ptuck874

RACJ2 said:


> Does it? I know they were running last season soon, but I figured it would be back about the same time it premiered last year. Couldn't find any info on the actual date though.
> 
> Update: You were correct, here is info about the new season starting 3/22 [Link]. Guess I will only be saving about $30 before I re-up for Showtime.


shoot im in the same boat, my free year stops at end of May, so I might have to pay for like 1 month to finish the season


----------



## Chuck W

Ed Campbell said:


> Still grandfathered AFAIK - still ain't changing anything.


Watch your mail. Just got a letter from Directv stating how they hadn't been charging for the dvr service but beginning in february they would, even tho I was grandfathered on the Premiere pak.


----------



## rlgold88

Along with the new rates and not waching the premium channels I downgraded to total choice xtra w/HD,Dvr. I have been a long term sub with premier package. I dont plan on leaving Directv at all but am wondering if downgrading my package with no change in equipment added the 2 year subscriber from that date???


----------



## CrazyforYeshua

Only hardware changes extend your contract.


----------



## Link

In the next 5-10 years I don't see how these cable and satellite companies will make it. They increase prices every year and year after year. I could see maybe a $1 or so increase on base prices but not $3 every year and then they keep finding other things to increase prices on like DVR fees and receiver fees. 

I myself think it is ridiculous having to pay about $70 a month now for a basic package service when I mainly watch local stations and maybe 10 out of hundreds of channels that I don't need or care about. It is getting to the the point where it is just too much money to pay and just go back to using an antenna to watch local stations or watch shows online.

Most people expect things to DECREASE in price like cell phone plans and features--those plans keep getting cheaper in most cases with more minutes costing less than in the past.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Link said:


> In the next 5-10 years I don't see how these cable and satellite companies will make it. They increase prices every year and year after year. I could see maybe a $1 or so increase on base prices but not $3 every year and then they keep finding other things to increase prices on like DVR fees and receiver fees.
> .


It not there falt is epsn and other that raise rates and force you to buy a crap to get 1-2 channels that you want.

We need to have the right to pick what you want before this also comes to the internet as well.

How will you fell if you needed to buy the disney channel on line loaded with kids stuff just to get espn on line / espn 360.

OR FOX on line forced you to buy a fox movie pass to get non movie fox stuff.

Same thing with MTV / nick / comedy central.

Would you want to be forced to buy a MTV music pack to get comedy central on line?

forced to buy G4 on line to get sci-fi ?


----------



## dubber deux

It's clear to see that unless there is a MAJOR catstrophe lots of Americans are absolutely BLIND to reality.


D* and others can continue to raise rates and their customer base will eventually over the next several years go way down. It HAS to we are still hemmoraging jobs and it doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. Not to mention that most experts say that this "so called" recovery will be a JOBLESS one with almost 8 MILLION positions going away and never coming back. Sure eventually a few new jobs will be created BUT they will pay MUCH less....

BOTTOM LINE is that in the near future nonessentials, such as pay tv, will become luxuries that very few can afford....I suppose that pay tv could simply concentrate only on the privileged few and charge a fortune because my thought is that the vast majority of the US population will be living very hand to mouth in the coming decade.


----------



## damondlt

This is nice of D* to give its customers notice.
E* doesn't do this , they just raise you bill when ever they feel like it without notice.


----------



## Jeremy W

dubber deux said:


> BOTTOM LINE is that in the near future nonessentials, such as pay tv, will become luxuries that very few can afford


Ridiculous.


----------



## bidger

damondlt said:


> This is nice of D* to give its customers notice.
> E* doesn't do this , they just raise you bill when ever they feel like it without notice.


Wow, I had no idea. Aren't they required to give advance notice of rate increases? I thought all providers had to do that.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Link said:


> Most people expect things to DECREASE in price like cell phone plans and features--those plans keep getting cheaper in most cases with more minutes costing less than in the past.


Cell Phone companies are delivering "air" to you. The ability to place calls.

Television content distributors are delivering content to you. Content costs money, and when ESPN, HBO, CBS, NFL etc, etc are raising rates every year, then costs go up because the cost of doing business has gone up.

The comparison to the cell phone companies and television content distributors is apples to oranges.

These content companies are not going to give it away for free, whether it's D*, E*, the internet, etc. My guess is you're going to start seeing them charge online very soon, as well. Or via authentication. Just as the news companies are starting to push very hard for this as well online.

Those content companies can no longer survive on ad revenues alone, thus they are charging the distributors (E*, D*, Comcast, etc) more and more each year.


----------



## Sneezy

I'm a little late but, anyway......

I know it's not all D's fault. The Yankess and other channels are expensive to carry but on the other hand they DO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY to their customers and I don't see it with D or cable. I pay almost 2x as much with D as I did with TWC.

TWC could not give me a reliable signal to my house. Heavy downloads on road runner would also impact the TV. Our local channels on TWC are worse than OTA, and thats if I could get ota. I'm on a dark side fo the hill so OTA is out.

D simply works all the time for me. I hate the cost, especially since I don't watch a lot of the channels and the price gets bumped up by getting the distant locals out of NYC.

I just think it's about time that D, E & TWC and all the other broadcasters bully back the channels. They pay actors way to much (for crap sitcoms), and this among others is why costs go up.

My guess is in 5 years or less I'm done with D, and I won't go back to TWC so I would have to stream over the internet to see what I want.


----------



## drded

To all of you thinking the streaming over the Internet is the answer, guess again. Right now they are getting you hooked and working out the bugs. That too will soon be charged for, and it won't be cheap either.

Several analysts and a few posters here have already predicted the end of the free Internet content within the not-so-far-away future.

Dave


----------



## dubber deux

Jeremy W said:


> Ridiculous.


:nono2:

That's what all the other so called masters of wall street were saying about the economy and market tanking just five years ago.

By gut and experience in life told me something BIG was going to happen around 2006-08. My belief was that wall street and other markets were a literal "house of cards" just waiting to crumble.


----------



## dubber deux

drded said:


> To all of you thinking the streaming over the Internet is the answer, guess again. Right now they are getting you hooked and working out the bugs. That too will soon be charged for, and it won't be cheap either.
> 
> Several analysts and a few posters here have already predicted the end of the free Internet content within the not-so-far-away future.
> 
> Dave


Bingo....You are RIGHT on...Sure SOME limited public domain stuff will remain free, but I agree with you that eventually access to most web content will be by subscription at some point in the near future.

Which leads me to the point that considering the dire state of the job market, the lack of increase of actual wages among those still working (actually they have been going DOWN over the past three decades adjusted for inflation) and the thus the pool of available consumers to purchase various items something HAS to give...My gut is telling me that fewer people will be accessing pay tv services and the price WILL go up for those that remain able to afford the service. It might take a decade or so but this is where I think things are going .


----------



## bobkvjr

Those who forget the past, are doomed to fail in the future. The simularities of today to 1929-1933 era are sobering and scary. I will not allow myself to ignore the issues of the state of the economy just to see TV and some football games and put myself in a position that endangers my daily living. When push comes to shove, pay TV , internet and cell phones are the first to go.


----------



## dubber deux

bobkvjr said:


> Those who forget the past, are doomed to fail in the future. The simularities of today to 1929-1933 era are sobering and scary. I will not allow myself to ignore the issues of the state of the economy just to see TV and some football games and put myself in a position that endangers my daily living. When push comes to shove, pay TV , internet and cell phones are the first to go.


Exactly Bob....

Quite a few independent analyists are saying that the trends in this market mirror the roller coaster ride the market had just prior to it going belly up in 1933.

The worst part is that folks today have so many modern comforts (and are soft?) that many more will simply not be able to weather an economy that totally tanks like it did back then. I think that the typical American back then was much more self sufficient and able to endure real hardship.

I know for myself that I'm very able and willing to live life at the bare bones if I have to...I've made a plan B for the worst if it is needed and I know I can survive.


----------



## damondlt

bidger said:


> Wow, I had no idea. Aren't they required to give advance notice of rate increases? I thought all providers had to do that.


Not a peep from E* about an increase to its customers, Unless you have a Bundle pack with AT&T. 
ATT is informing its Dish customers. I would imaging Verizon has too.


----------



## wingrider01

dubber deux said:


> Bingo....You are RIGHT on...Sure SOME limited public domain stuff will remain free, but I agree with you that eventually access to most web content will be by subscription at some point in the near future.
> 
> Which leads me to the point that considering the dire state of the job market, the lack of increase of actual wages among those still working (actually they have been going DOWN over the past three decades adjusted for inflation) and the thus the pool of available consumers to purchase various items something HAS to give...My gut is telling me that fewer people will be accessing pay tv services and the price WILL go up for those that remain able to afford the service. It might take a decade or so but this is where I think things are going .


bandwidth caps will hit the internet supplied content


----------



## Satelliteracer

drded said:


> To all of you thinking the streaming over the Internet is the answer, guess again. Right now they are getting you hooked and working out the bugs. That too will soon be charged for, and it won't be cheap either.
> 
> Several analysts and a few posters here have already predicted the end of the free Internet content within the not-so-far-away future.
> 
> Dave


That's exactly right. ESPN (or fill in anyone else you wish) isn't going to give their stuff away for free whether you consume it on D*, E*, Comcast or on the internet.

The costs come from the programmers and they go up every year, and that's why the pricing goes up for every MSO.


----------



## dubber deux

Satelliteracer said:


> That's exactly right. ESPN (or fill in anyone else you wish) isn't going to give their stuff away for free whether you consume it on D*, E*, Comcast or on the internet.
> 
> The costs come from the programmers and they go up every year, and that's why the pricing goes up for every MSO.


That is why I believe that you will see a "culling" of such providers of a huge degree in the coming decade.


----------



## Jeremy W

Satelliteracer said:


> Cell Phone companies are delivering "air" to you. The ability to place calls.
> 
> Television content distributors are delivering content to you. Content costs money, and when ESPN, HBO, CBS, NFL etc, etc are raising rates every year, then costs go up because the cost of doing business has gone up.
> 
> The comparison to the cell phone companies and television content distributors is apples to oranges.


Cell phone providers are able to deliver that "air" because of the millions they've spent on building their networks, which they are constantly upgrading. That's not free, either.


----------



## dubber deux

Jeremy W said:


> Cell phone providers are able to deliver that "air" because of the millions they've spent on building their networks, which they are constantly upgrading. That's not free, either.


The hardware needed to create these networks is EXTREMELY expensive, outrageously so, not to mention the labor to install things, erect towers,ect....I have to believe that at some point these rates will start climbing once again.

I am wondering ....are the fairly cheap airtime costs the result of network carriers getting customers hooked too? I think it probably is.


----------



## Jeremy W

dubber deux said:


> I have to believe that at some point these rates will start climbing once again.


I'm sure you do.


----------



## dubber deux

Jeremy W said:


> I'm sure you do.


So Jeremy, since you took the trouble to make that comment why not expound a bit.

So you too think that the carriers are simply getting consumers "hooked" on the service with initially low prices only to gradually bump them up once many can't seem to live without it?


----------



## CJTE

dubber deux said:


> So Jeremy, since you took the trouble to make that comment why not expound a bit.
> 
> So you too think that the carriers are simply getting consumers "hooked" on the service with initially low prices only to gradually bump them up once many can't seem to live without it?


Ive read your last few posts and STILL dont get what the heck you're trying to say!?

Are you saying that you expect Cellular carriers to start price bumping? Because they're getting us 'hooked' on their network availability?
That's ridiculous. as SatelliteRacer said a few posts back, DirecTV is rebroadcasting content. Cellular carriers aren't rebroadcasting someone elses coverage (except when you're in roaming, and if you havent noticed you usually pay extra for that).

The cellular providers vs television providers argument is moot.
While similarities can be compared re: the fact that they use different business models, they can't be compared as to how they operate as they provide 2 different types of services.

Compare DirecTV/Dish/FTA
Compare Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint/AT&T (just not here on this forum unless it's in the OT section)
Compare Chevy/Ford/Dodge/Lexus/Etc (once again, in the OT section).

Apples = Apples
Oranges = Oranges
Grapefruit = Grapefruit.

Apples ≠ Grapefruit.


----------



## Jeremy W

dubber deux said:


> So you too think that the carriers are simply getting consumers "hooked" on the service with initially low prices only to gradually bump them up once many can't seem to live without it?


I've been with Verizon for five years now, and they haven't raised my rates once. Since I got my first cell phone in 2000 with Nextel, and through many different carriers since then, the price I've paid has been fairly consistent. Additionally, no carrier has ever raised their rates while I was with them.


----------



## dubber deux

But it appears that there is quite a change underway as the buzzword lately seems to be "mobile content" including web, video, ect....It would seem that this would be much more addicitive then simple phone calls, right....

If folks get used to this stuff or a regular basis wouldn't it be easy for them to bump up prices...after all they are in business to make a profit if their network is critical for accessing such rich content why not bump up the prices? Seems the perfect opportunity.


----------



## drded

There are a lot of factors involved in a rate increase, and while we don't like them, they really are required. If DirecTV does not make money, what happens? Stock holders pull out their funds by selling the shares they own. This means DirecTV has much less money to make any capital improvements with. To us consumers it means less improvements and a possible degradation of service if things like new satellites and maintenance have to be deferred. History is full of companies no longer with us where this has happened. A company needs investor money...and profits to keep the investors interested.

The rate increase itself is the product of a science like you wouldn't believe. Financial analysts study and test many, many iterations of various amounts and charges before settling on the final amount. They know how many subscribers will cancel service for each tenth of a percent increase. They also know how many will downgrade service. They closely monitor the competition and know how many will defect. They balance all of this and more to determine what the exact raise in rates is to be.

So, to keep the bottom line good and the investor interested, a company like DirecTV needs to factor in the increased costs of programming, operational expenses, equipment charges, leasing fees, package pricing, and more.

So, while none of us likes the idea of paying more, we also need to realize what it really does cost to stay in business. To those that are so very upset, check out the costs of whatever you want to change to and make your best choice, which may include staying with your increased-price DirecTV service. As history has taught us, when a particular product or service prices itself out of the market, a correction always occurs. For example, the current real estate market which priced itself right into a huge crash in real estate prices. This is a simplification of a complex problem, but I think you can get the picture. If DirecTV gets too expensive they will lose more subscribers than they can afford and face a merger or acquisition. Same goes for the programming services who think we all have money trees in our back yards. Over time, all equalizes.

Dave


----------



## Satelliteracer

Jeremy W said:


> Cell phone providers are able to deliver that "air" because of the millions they've spent on building their networks, which they are constantly upgrading. That's not free, either.


Not disputing that, but as people shed land lines left and right and take on cell phones instead, they can cover those costs.

And infrastructure costs are not immune for satellite and cable providers either. Satellite launches, satellite builds, uplink centers, national call centers, etc, etc, are costly.

The big difference remains that the cell phone companies, by and large, are not having to package content to send to the end user. The MSO's, on the other hand, are sending content to the end user (i.e. ESPN, HBO, CBS, PPV Movies, etc) that costs a ton of money and those costs go up every year.

That's why I think any comparison to the cell phone providers just makes no sense whatsoever. They are totally different products.

And for the record, my cell phone costs have gone up. I have AT&T and they've gone up twice. Most recently because I chose to go with the iPhone. As a result, I need to buy the unlimited data plan. I think it's a good deal, but it's an extra $30 a month for that service.


----------



## Jeremy W

Satelliteracer said:


> And for the record, my cell phone costs have gone up. I have AT&T and they've gone up twice. Most recently because I chose to go with the iPhone. As a result, I need to buy the unlimited data plan. I think it's a good deal, but it's an extra $30 a month for that service.


Your costs went up because you *chose *to have them go up. That is not even close to DirecTV simply increasing their rates.


----------



## Satelliteracer

DIRECTV chose to have their costs go up? Interesting.


----------



## Jeremy W

Satelliteracer said:


> DIRECTV chose to have their costs go up? Interesting.


Not even remotely close to what I said. Your AT&T bill went up because of a choice *you *made. Had you decided to leave things alone, your bill would not have gone up. That's like saying DirecTV raised their rates $6/month when you decided to get a DVR. Ridiculous.

Your DirecTV bill will go up without *you *doing anything. That's the difference.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Jeremy W said:


> Not even remotely close to what I said. Your AT&T bill went up because of a choice *you *made. Had you decided to leave things alone, your bill would not have gone up. That's like saying DirecTV raised their rates $6/month when you decided to get a DVR. Ridiculous.
> 
> Your DirecTV bill will go up without *you *doing anything. That's the difference.


My apologies, I did not read it correct. I thought when you said "your" you meant D*. Again, my apologies.

But to be fair, my wireless rates went up twice through no action of mine. The third time they went up because of action I took, which was to add an unlimited data plan.

But I understand where you are coming from. The difference remains, however, that the two businesses are not the same. One is delivering air or time, the other is delivering content that is sold to the distributor and then re-sold to customers.


----------



## Jeremy W

Satelliteracer said:


> But to be fair, my wireless rates went up twice through no action of mine.


I wasn't trying to say that wireless rates never go up, just that in 10 years it has never happened to me.


Satelliteracer said:


> The difference remains, however, that the two businesses are not the same.


Definitely won't get any argument from me.


----------



## Doug Brott

Looks like DIRECTV may not be the only one increasing it's prices .. FIOS is doing the same.

Engadget.com


> Up until January 16th 2010, that ETF has been $179, and according to DSL Reports on the 17th, that fee is set to go up to $360. That's not it though, as Verizon is expected to raise the price of services another $10 or $20 a month.


----------



## ThomasM

Doug Brott said:


> Looks like DIRECTV may not be the only one increasing it's prices .. FIOS is doing the same.


Of course! Recent articles demanding FCC and/or government intervention point out that cable TV rates have gone up 27% in the past three years!! And while I don't follow the DISH network forums, I can't believe that THEY haven't increased their prices in the past few years.

The only entertainment medium that hasn't gone up is over-the-air broadcasting. BUT when you watch a "60 minute" show you get a lot less show than you did 10 years ago so even the broadcast stations have figured out how to generate more revenue!!


----------



## churdie

wonder if u keep current package u would be grandfathered at old price?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

*Cable fee battles point to smaller TV bundles*


----------



## TheRatPatrol

*DIRECTV Gets 'F' From Better Business Bureau*


----------



## Jeremy W

churdie said:


> wonder if u keep current package u would be grandfathered at old price?


Nope. The only way you can keep your current price is if you're a new customer who signed up under a 12-month price guarantee. In that case, your price will go up whenever the guarantee expires.


----------



## Sneezy

drded said:


> To all of you thinking the streaming over the Internet is the answer, guess again. Right now they are getting you hooked and working out the bugs. That too will soon be charged for, and it won't be cheap either.
> 
> Several analysts and a few posters here have already predicted the end of the free Internet content within the not-so-far-away future.
> 
> Dave


Then when they start charging, I quit watching. Enough is enough. They don't need to pay sitcom actors a million a show.

Eventually people will quit paying.


----------



## Scott R. Scherr

It is interesting that Directv last raised prices on March 4, 2009. Thus, their prices are going up 11 months after the last increase (not a year).

Scott


----------



## Cyber36

I suggest that they stop launching sats if we can't afford to pay for them.........


----------



## kevinwmsn

I think sats(D10,D11,D12) are already paid for.


----------



## schlar01

How does 3D affect the rates going forward? I would hope that 3D would be on a tier of its own where people who want it can pay for it, similar to HD. I have no interest in 3D and shouldn't be charged for providing these channels.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

schlar01 said:


> How does 3D affect the rates going forward? I would hope that 3D would be on a tier of its own where people who want it can pay for it, similar to HD. I have no interest in 3D and shouldn't be charged for providing these channels.


some of the 3D is PPV.


----------



## Jeremy W

schlar01 said:


> How does 3D affect the rates going forward? I would hope that 3D would be on a tier of its own where people who want it can pay for it, similar to HD. I have no interest in 3D and shouldn't be charged for providing these channels.


I highly doubt that DirecTV will pass up this opportunity to nickel and dime customers even further.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

schlar01 said:


> How does 3D affect the rates going forward? I would hope that 3D would be on a tier of its own where people who want it can pay for it, similar to HD. I have no interest in 3D and shouldn't be charged for providing these channels.


Any pricing for 3D HDTV will not even come into play until it is ready for launch, which is currently targeted for June - no real impact or relevance to the 2/9 annual price increase.


----------



## Jeremy W

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Any pricing for 3D HDTV will not even come into play until it is ready for launch, which is currently targeted for June - no real impact or relevance to the 2/9 annual price increase.


Unless, of course, 3D has already been factored into the upcoming price increase. Which is something we don't know.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jeremy W said:


> Unless, of course, 3D has already been factored into the upcoming price increase. Which is something we don't know.


Since the launch of 3D HDTV is scheduled for June, but of course subject to change (as its still that far off) ...it is possible, but unlikely IMHO.


----------



## Jeremy W

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Since the launch of 3D HDTV is scheduled for June, but of course subject to change (as its still that far off) ...it is possible, but unlikely IMHO.


I agree that it's far more likely that 3D will be an upsell, but my point was simply that we don't know.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jeremy W said:


> I agree that it's far more likely that 3D will be an upsell, but my point was simply that we don't know.


I'm with ya on that.


----------



## adamson

I know many installers in the area and they contribute price increases are due to the new "no phone line policy" . It is being finalized as we speak. Directv needs to find a way to identify every receivers location. Ya some increase may be due to programming cost but we are also paying for thieves. DBSTALK needs to remove posts related to the practice. I see one thats been up for days and is still unlocked. I have had it with paying more again for far from quality service.


----------



## BubblePuppy

As long as the 3D channels are subscription only, which it should be, then no problem, .


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BubblePuppy said:


> As long as the 3D channels are subscription only, which it should be, then no problem, .


Its entirely possible that all the packages could be "retooled" when the price changes take place in February, such as what channels are included with each pack.

I still believe that the HD Extra Pack will morph into something else some time in the months ahead, especially once the D12 sat is activated with some new HD content.


----------



## Jeremy W

upmichigan said:


> I know many installers in the area and they contribute price increases are due to the new "no phone line policy" .


They're wrong.


upmichigan said:


> I have had it with paying more again for far from quality service.


So leave.


----------



## Shades228

These costs are due to carriage agreements and the need to keep the profit % the same. It sounds more like the techs were talking about a different provider and their rumored increase.


----------



## ATARI

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Its entirely possible that all the packages could be "retooled" when the price changes take place in February, such as what channels are included with each pack.
> 
> I still believe that the HD Extra Pack will morph into something else some time in the months ahead, especially once the D12 sat is activated with some new HD content.


Yep, it'll be 3D HD Extra Pack and will cost $9.99 a month.


----------



## Jeremy W

ATARI said:


> Yep, it'll be 3D HD Extra Pack and will cost $9.99 a month.


DirecTV can't really call their 3D "HD" since the effective resolution is only half of 2D 1080i.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV can't really call their 3D "HD" since the effective resolution is only half of 2D 1080i.


Sorry to differ...we saw firsthand *1080p* 3D at CES...a live feed from the DirecTV sat.

Those channels are listed in all the handouts at the CES as 1080p.

That's indeed HD.


----------



## adamson

Yo Jeremy, I should leave? Directv should not increase prices untill ALL audio and PQ issues are corrected period. They profess the best HD there is and Im sick of it. It is an outright lie! So why tell me to leave...people here need to be on their you know what for the issues we have. Audio issues have gone on for a few years now...NO EXCUSE in my book.


----------



## James Long

upmichigan said:


> DBSTALK needs to remove posts related to the practice. I see one thats been up for days and is still unlocked.


Please hit the report post icon







on any rule breaking posts. We try, but can't catch them all without the community's help. If you're having any other problems with the way the forum is run please PM any moderator. Thanks!


----------



## hilmar2k

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sorry to differ...we saw firsthand *1080p* 3D at CES...a live feed from the DirecTV sat.
> 
> Those channels are listed in all the handouts at the CES as 1080p.
> 
> That's indeed HD.


But it isn't 1080p to each eye like BluRay is. You need HDMI 1.4 for that. DIRECTV's 3D will be lower res than standard HD, but still very good.


----------



## Jeremy W

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sorry to differ...we saw firsthand *1080p* 3D at CES...a live feed from the DirecTV sat.


:nono2:

The side-by-side method DirecTV is using for their 3D channels results in two 960x1080 frames combined into one 1920x1080 frame. The receiver splits the frame up into the two individual frames, stretches them out to 1920x1080, and shows them sequentially to achieve the 3D effect. Although the output resolution is 1080p, since the frames were transmitted at 960x1080, the effective resolution is certainly not true 1080p. It's half of 1080p.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> Those channels are listed in all the handouts at the CES as 1080p.


Of course they are, it's marketing BS.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's indeed HD.


1920x1080 is 1080p, 960x1080 is not.


----------



## Jeremy W

upmichigan said:


> So why tell me to leave


DirecTV is raising their prices, and you disagree with the increase. You can either pay it, or leave. The strength of your disagreement makes me feel like leaving would be the best option for you.


----------



## dubber deux

upmichigan said:


> Yo Jeremy, I should leave? Directv should not increase prices untill ALL audio and PQ issues are corrected period. They profess the best HD there is and Im sick of it. It is an outright lie! So why tell me to leave...people here need to be on their you know what for the issues we have. Audio issues have gone on for a few years now...NO EXCUSE in my book.


*The proverbial nuclear bomb of complaints!*:lol:

I totally agree. D* picture quality and I 'm not even talking about the digital compression issues ( VIDEO LEVELS INCORRECT on a number of channels!!!!!!!!) leaves plenty to be desired. A few of the offending channels have been corrected but not all....Chiller, TLC, Comedy Central, QVC and a few others are still not within NTSC spec.

Hey jeremy....are YOU going to pay OUR ETF fees if we want to leave? Just put the 400$ in the mail (cashiers check please) and I'll be happy to go away. :nono2:


----------



## Shades228

dubber deux said:


> *The proverbial nuclear bomb of complaints!*:lol:
> 
> I totally agree. D* picture quality and I 'm not even talking about the digital compression issues ( VIDEO LEVELS INCORRECT on a number of channels!!!!!!!!) leaves plenty to be desired. A few of the offending channels have been corrected but not all....Chiller, TLC, Comedy Central, QVC and a few others are still not within NTSC spec.
> 
> Hey jeremy....are YOU going to pay OUR ETF fees if we want to leave? Just put the 400$ in the mail (cashiers check please) and I'll be happy to go away. :nono2:


Obviously you're not that unhappy if it's only a cancelation fee stopping you.


----------



## dubber deux

There's no way in heck that I am throwing 400 bucks down the crapper to get away from their subpar picture. Glad to see that your one of the 1%-2% of the US population that is doing just fine with this horrific economy. 


Like I said, you guys want to foot the bill..I'm gone.


----------



## Jeremy W

dubber deux said:


> There's no way in heck that I am throwing 400 bucks down the crapper to get away from their subpar picture.


Not only is the ETF pro-rated, but nobody's ETF starts off at $400. It won't cost you anywhere near that amount to leave.


----------



## Shades228

Jeremy W said:


> Not only is the ETF pro-rated, but nobody's ETF starts off at $400. It won't cost you anywhere near that amount to leave.


$20 x 24 = $480 however day 1 is counted as in that month so really it's $460 as the max.

However Dubber started in March so his cancelation fee would be about $280 at this point. Assuming his bill is roughly $60 a month that means he could suspend have great OTA PQ and then pay the cancelation fee off with his normal bill.

If only 1-2% of the people were doing well in this economy we would be having riots.


----------



## Jeremy W

Shades228 said:


> $20 x 24 = $480 however day 1 is counted as in that month so really it's $460 as the max.


You're right, I always forget that they raised it to $20/month from $12.50. :nono:


----------



## dubber deux

Shades228 said:


> $
> 
> If only 1-2% of the people were doing well in this economy we would be having riots.


If things keep going the way they are it doesn't look like that possibility is out of the question.

Once large numbers of folks stop receiving UE benefits and still can't find a job it very well could happen.

Wall Street is grudgingly admitting that the outlook is quite a bit worse than expected in many ways.

Almost all indy experts are calling this a "jobless recovery" ! That is frightening considering howmany folks have lost a job over the past year and how many NEW workers are entering the market.


----------



## Jeremy W

dubber deux said:


> If things keep going the way they are it doesn't look like that possibility is out of the question.


Now it's a possibility, in your last post it was reality. Keep this wonky BS out of here, please. There are other message boards for stuff like this.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

hilmar2k said:


> But it isn't 1080p to each eye like BluRay is. You need HDMI 1.4 for that. DIRECTV's 3D will be lower res than standard HD, but still very good.


Interesting if it were true, but of course, its not.

There's a reason that the 3D HDTV channels will require double the bandwidth, and you just expained why.


Jeremy W;23333281920x1080 is 1080p said:


> Very true, but not applicable to what they will actually be delivering.
> 
> Their CES onsite DirecTV and Panasonic experts both specifically explained that 1080p was what they were broadcasting for *each* image, which is why it requires double the bandwidth to delivery 3D HDTV.
> 
> Its also the reason why Blu Ray 3D movies will likely only be available on 50 GB Blu Ray disk media.


----------



## hilmar2k

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Interesting if it were true, but of course, its not.
> 
> There's a reason that the 3D HDTV channels will require double the bandwidth, and you just expained why.
> 
> Very true, but not applicable to what they will actually be delivering.
> 
> Their CES onsite DirecTV and Panasonic experts both specifically explained that 1080p was what they were broadcasting for *each* image, which is why it requires double the bandwidth to delivery 3D HDTV.
> 
> Its also the reason why Blu Ray 3D movies will likely only be available on 50 GB Blu Ray disk media.


So what you are saying is that the HR2x's are 1.4 compatible? Becasue that's what it takes to do what you're saying.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

hilmar2k said:


> So what you are saying is that the HR2x's are 1.4 compatible? *Becasue that's what it takes *to do what you're saying.


Not according to the DirecTV and Panasonic folks we talked to.

HDMI1.4 is not needed to deliver 1080p - in fact - you can get that now on select channels (including VOD) already without HDMI v1.4.

What *IS* needed is a means to deliver *more than one HD stream *in such a manner that it can be decoded through the glasses concurrently, and supposedly, there will be a firmware update to HD receivers in June to support that somehow. We were not told HOW they intended to do it, just that it could/would be done.


----------



## hilmar2k

> The principal improvements afforded by new 3D TV technologies are full color and high resolution--reportedly full 1080p HD resolution for both eyes in the Blu-ray 3D system, for example, and lower resolution in the DirecTV system. However, we still expect lower-resolution 3D to look quite sharp; see HDTV resolution explained for some reasons why.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10434346-1.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0


----------



## hilmar2k

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not according to the DirecTV and Panasonic folks we talked to.
> 
> HDMI1.4 is not needed to deliver 1080p - in fact - you can get that now on select channels (including VOD) already without HDMI v1.4.What *IS* needed is a means to deliver *more than one HD stream *in such a manner that it can be decoded through the glasses concurrently, and supposedly, there will be a firmware update to HD receivers in June to support that somehow. We were not told HOW they intended to do it, just that it could/would be done.


VOD and PPV are indeed sometimes 1080p24, and that does not require HDMI 1.4. However, what you are talking about is 1080p to *each *eye, which requires *twice* the bandwidth, and more than HDMI 1.3 can handle. So there is no way to get 1080p 3D without HDMI 1.4, and impossible on current DIRECTV receivers.


----------



## Jeremy W

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Their CES onsite DirecTV and Panasonic experts both specifically explained that 1080p was what they were broadcasting for *each* image, which is why it requires double the bandwidth to delivery 3D HDTV.


We got into a very similar argument the LED TVs at CES last year. You take this marketing BS way too seriously. You either misunderstood what DirecTV and Panasonic said, or they lied to you. I don't know which one it was, but I do know that DirecTV's current equipment isn't delivering 1080p resolution to each eye for 3D. No firmware update will allow it to happen, the hardware simply isn't capable.


----------



## CJTE

So what we know is that DirecTV will be providing 3D content in HD, but not 1080p BluRay quality, right?
I personally wouldn't be surprised to find out that DirecTV doesn't have enough bandwidth to push 1080p to 2 seperate frames.

I don't really know how that's on the DirecTVs upcoming new rate change.

To the other posters whom have said that DirecTV costs too much now (or will after the price change), then please leave. We at DBSTalk want you to be happy with your provider, if you don't like it you can move along.

Who has "better" HD than DirecTV? With better picture/audio quality? Dish?? Comcast? If that's the case, why are you still with DirecTV?

And to DoubleTap personally, no one is going to pay for you to leave, that is silly. But DirecTVs numbers are still going up (even with all the people stopping their service because they can't afford it). Go figure that out.


----------



## adamson

FYI technologies to develop fraud detection techniques will result in increased comsumer costs. It is in Directv's financial reports. This information came directly from a local installer. How can directv continue no phone line policy without identifying their equipments location without increasing costs due to fraud? It is part of the increase we are seeing now.


----------



## Lord Vader

upmichigan said:


> This information came directly from a local installer.


I wouldn't take seriously much of what a local installer has to say. They're usually as clueless as a DirecTV CSR.

The increase in fees is due mostly to the constant price increases by programmers. These are passed on to the consumer--you and me. Illegal satellite reception/fraud is not nearly as rampant as it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when DirecTV's access cards were totally compromised. Since the advent of their P4 cards, which have been in use for the last several years, piracy is nonexistent.

The phone line situation to which you refer is a BS excuse from you or a "local installer" to try and justify price increases. Did you ever stop to think about this fact: more Americans are simply ditching their home phones/landline phones and going with cellular service as their sole means of phone communication.

Two of my cousins a year ago ditched their phone service at home for cell phone service only, and both of them are DirecTV customers. Ditto for a friend of mine.

There are legitimate reasons to not have a phone line connected, and to have some absolute demand that a phone line be connected is simply absurd; DirecTV understands this.


----------



## raott

upmichigan said:


> How can directv continue no phone line policy without identifying their equipments location without increasing costs due to fraud? It is part of the increase we are seeing now.


Your bill is based on what alot of very smart pricing analysts believe will generate the most revenue. It is only indirectly related to programming costs as the entire market shifts. Your bill is not increasing due to the non-enforcement of the phone line policy in any way shape or form. It is also not increasing due to fraud prevention. Even if there were mass fraud going on, your bill is based on what the market will allow. D* cannot simply raise your bill above the market price without their revenues falling.


----------



## Beerstalker

Wouldn't 960x1080p still be considered 1080p? Maybe that's how they can still claim that it will be 1080p. They didn't really say it would still be 1920x1080p.


----------



## hilmar2k

Beerstalker said:


> Wouldn't 960x1080p still be considered 1080p? Maybe that's how they can still claim that it will be 1080p. They didn't really say it would still be 1920x1080p.


I suppose, it's a bit of a stretch, though (pun intended). All I know is it will not be 1920x1080 on current hardware.


----------



## Beerstalker

hilmar2k said:


> I suppose, it's a bit of a stretch, though (pun intended). All I know is it will not be 1920x1080 on current hardware.


Doesn't Dish currently offer PPV in 1280x1080p and call it 1080p? Or do they not donscale the PPV like they do other 1080i programming?


----------



## Jeremy W

Beerstalker said:


> Wouldn't 960x1080p still be considered 1080p?


No. The shorthand "1080p" refers to 1920x1080p only. You can't just substitute another horizontal resolution and call it 1080p. The reason DirecTV gets away with it is the same reason they got away with HD Lite in the past, because the final output is stretched to the proper resolution.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jeremy W said:


> We got into a very similar argument the LED TVs at CES last year. *You take this marketing BS way too seriously. You either misunderstood what DirecTV and Panasonic said, or they lied to you*.


Then again....*you* could be wrong.

You're welcome to believe what you wish, but we were told what we were told, and have no reason to accuse any of those folks of not telling the truth. Since this came from not only the onsite DirecTV folks, but also the Panasonic folks, we'd be inclined to believe them *instead* of any naysayers.

But then again....this thread is about the pricing changes, so perhaps its time for the sign...

:backtotop


----------



## Jeremy W

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then again....*you* could be wrong.


I could, but I'm not.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> Since this came from not only the onsite DirecTV folks, but also the Panasonic folks, we'd be inclined to believe them *instead* of any naysayers.


Would you believe a press release from DirecTV and RealD?

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/news/20...ogether_to_deliver_3d_content_to_the_home.php


hdtvfan0001 said:


> But then again....this thread is about the pricing changes, so perhaps its time for the sign...
> 
> :backtotop


Yeah, you don't get to continue the argument and then try and redeem yourself by posting that sign. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## hilmar2k

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then again....*you* could be wrong.
> 
> You're welcome to believe what you wish, but we were told what we were told, and have no reason to accuse any of those folks of not telling the truth. Since this came from not only the onsite DirecTV folks, but also the Panasonic folks, we'd be inclined to believe them *instead* of any naysayers.


I am not a naysayer, I am just saying nay to your statement that DIRECTV's 3D will be 1080p to each eye. That just simply isn't possible with current hardware, regardless of what DIRECTV or Panasonic said...or what you inferred from what they actually said.


----------



## carl6

Actions speak louder than words. I love my DirecTV service and equipment, but I just called and deactivated three receivers to save $15 a month, which will more than offset the rate increase in February. They were all extra, doubled up on the same tv's, nice but not necessary.


----------



## Satelliteracer

DISH price increase

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170708


----------



## Doug Brott

Yup .. everyone is going up a lot this year ..


----------



## BubblePuppy

If it wasn't for all the nickel and dime ( and dollar) raising going on, and the job market situation, I wouldn't mind so much. But when I add it all up..... the increase in rates vs value added.....just can't justify paying that increase with out looking for ways to recoup, HD pack will be the first to go. Too bad because I like it.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Bubble....rumor has it that HD Extra Pack will be adding some more channels fairly soon.


----------



## SParker

Satelliteracer said:


> Bubble....rumor has it that HD Extra Pack will be adding some more channels fairly soon.


What HD only channels are still available out there?


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Satelliteracer said:


> Bubble....rumor has it that HD Extra Pack will be adding some more channels fairly soon.


fairly soon = this week? :grin:


----------



## BubblePuppy

Satelliteracer said:


> Bubble....rumor has it that HD Extra Pack will be adding some more channels fairly soon.


Thanks for the heads up.
Hmmm....might just have to wait. I guess I could smoke less cigs a day and make a pack last longer, that would save some money..:lol: 
Nahhh.


----------



## Jeremy W

Satelliteracer said:


> Bubble....rumor has it that HD Extra Pack will be adding some more channels fairly soon.


They better not be increasing the price for that as well. As it stands, I find the HD Extra Pack to be a terrible value. More channels would help that, but only if the price remained the same.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Hutchinshouse said:


> fairly soon = this week? :grin:


After D12 is operational, not this week. :lol:


----------



## Jeremy W

Satelliteracer said:


> After D12 is operational, not this week. :lol:


How about next week? Are we there yet?????????????? COME ON!!!!!!!


----------



## BubblePuppy

Jeremy W said:


> *They better not be increasing the price for that as well*. As it stands,* I find the HD Extra Pack to be a terrible value. *More channels would help that, but only if the price remained the same.


That would be the s***s
So you don't have it, I presume?


----------



## ptuck874

Satelliteracer said:


> Bubble....rumor has it that HD Extra Pack will be adding some more channels fairly soon.


fear.net? (only thing i can think of right now  )


----------



## Jeremy W

BubblePuppy said:


> So you don't have it, I presume?


Correct.


----------



## xmguy

I currently have the HD DVR Extra package. Will my DVR fee remain to be part of the package or will BOTH the package fee go up and the DVR fee be added separate?


----------



## BubblePuppy

xmguy said:


> I currently have the HD DVR Extra package. Will my DVR fee remain to be part of the package or will BOTH the package fee go up and the DVR fee be added separate?


That might be the "nickel and dime us" reality. :nono2:


----------



## Beerstalker

xmguy said:


> I currently have the HD DVR Extra package. Will my DVR fee remain to be part of the package or will BOTH the package fee go up and the DVR fee be added separate?


I'm pretty sure just the package price will go up.

However if you really look at it the Choice Plus HD-DVR package price is exactly the same as if you add the prices of the Choice Plus package, HD Access Fee, and DVR Fee. There really isn't any savings.


----------



## RACJ2

Beerstalker said:


> I'm pretty sure just the package price will go up.
> 
> However if you really look at it the Choice Plus HD-DVR package price is exactly the same as if you add the prices of the Choice Plus package, HD Access Fee, and DVR Fee. There really isn't any savings.


Actually, you save $1 with the Choice Xtra HD DVR package. Not much, but better then nothing.


----------



## Beerstalker

Oops, I thought it was the same when I did the math a few months ago. Haven't paid attention since.

I do remember upgrading to Premier does save a few dollars over adding the movie channels and Sports pack to Choice Plus.

I originally dropped down to Choice + HD-DVR in March when I got laid off, but they gave me 3 free months of Showtime/Starz/HBO. I just never got around to cancelling them after 3 months, and now I'm working again so it isn't as big of a deal.


----------



## DFWHD

Apparently the D* CSRs are getting overwhelmed with folks reducing services to save money. I called to drop back from Premier to TC+ HD DVR (which I do every year from January to June) and the CSR didn't even try to talk me into any premiums. He sounded beaten down, so I asked him why he was so cheerful and his response was the majority of his inbound calls were to drop services.


----------



## Araxen

Satelliteracer said:


> Bubble....rumor has it that HD Extra Pack will be adding some more channels fairly soon.


HD Extra Pack Only PPV Movies!?! :lol:


----------



## harsh

Satelliteracer said:


> DISH price increase
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170708


There's a few decreases in there too.

The real increases are the receiver fees with the prices going up anywhere from $2-10 per box. Some of this is offset by a per account DVR fee.


----------



## raott

Satelliteracer said:


> Bubble....rumor has it that HD Extra Pack will be adding some more channels fairly soon.


Wonderful. Rather than putting the channels in the main packages, stick them in the pack that costs 5 bucks a month. Acting more and more like a cable company all the time.


----------



## paulman182

Probably a third of my viewing comes from the HD Extra pack.

It's the best value that DirecTV offers. I get a third of my programming for $5. The other two thirds costs over $100.


----------



## BubblePuppy

raott said:


> Wonderful. Rather than putting the channels in the main packages, stick them in the pack that costs 5 bucks a month. Acting more and more like a cable company all the time.


If a sports/shopping/religious/kids/baby channel is added to the HD Extra Pack I will dropped it.


----------



## BattleScott

We need one of these:

*http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/159184*

.


----------



## raott

paulman182 said:


> Probably a third of my viewing comes from the HD Extra pack.
> 
> It's the best value that DirecTV offers. I get a third of my programming for $5. The other two thirds costs over $100.


It would be a better value if it was in the main package that I'm already paying a $10 HD fee for. Like I said, more and more like a cable company every day. It didn't use to be that way.


----------



## joshjr

paulman182 said:


> Probably a third of my viewing comes from the HD Extra pack.
> 
> It's the best value that DirecTV offers. I get a third of my programming for $5. The other two thirds costs over $100.


I had it free for 3 months probably on 5 different occasions and I never watched it. Once in awhile I watched Becker on one of the channels but that was it. There was Zero value in it for me. Now I may be adding it back for the Olympics.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Araxen said:


> HD Extra Pack Only PPV Movies!?! :lol:


Will the 3d stuff go in to the Extra pack?


----------



## pfp

JoeTheDragon said:


> Will the 3d stuff go in to the Extra pack?


3D Extra Pack? :lol:


----------



## kd4ao

I don't understand announcement of new rates being on dbstalk but never being presented to a subscriber by D* its self. Seems like everyone should get a formal announcement.


----------



## joshjr

kd4ao said:


> I don't understand announcement of new rates being on dbstalk but never being presented to a subscriber by D* its self. Seems like everyone should get a formal announcement.


Its on their site and you should get something about it in your next bill. What more do you want? Them to come to your door to tell you about it?


----------



## JLucPicard

kd4ao said:


> I don't understand announcement of new rates being on dbstalk but never being presented to a subscriber by D* its self. Seems like everyone should get a formal announcement.


I'm signed up for e-mail notifications and received one the other day announcing the pricing changes.

If you aren't signed up for that, it shuold be in your bill or mailed separately. They give you the information in some way other than DBSTalk.


----------



## joshjr

JLucPicard said:


> I'm signed up for e-mail notifications and received one the other day announcing the pricing changes.
> 
> If you aren't signed up for that, it shuold be in your bill or mailed separately. They give you the information in some way other than DBSTalk.


I have been signed up for all that since the day I got service (8-19-08) and have not recieved anything.


----------



## wingrider01

joshjr said:


> I have been signed up for all that since the day I got service (8-19-08) and have not recieved anything.


check your spam folder from your provider - some isp's are a little to over ambitous on setting their spam rules - had to argue with mine to get them to allow my bank to send my statements to me


----------



## joshjr

wingrider01 said:


> check your spam folder from your provider - some isp's are a little to over ambitous on setting their spam rules - had to argue with mine to get them to allow my bank to send my statements to me


I get all kinds of other stuff from them for sports and payments and changes to my account and I check the span folder daily to. No email on it.


----------



## dubber deux

DFWHD said:


> Apparently the D* CSRs are getting overwhelmed with folks reducing services to save money. I called to drop back from Premier to TC+ HD DVR (which I do every year from January to June) and the CSR didn't even try to talk me into any premiums. He sounded beaten down, so I asked him why he was so cheerful and his response was the majority of his inbound calls were to drop services.


* BINGO!!!!*

Anyone who hasn't seen this coming for the past year or two is either retwarded or living in "the cave" with Osama...


----------



## Jeremy W

dubber deux said:


> Anyone who hasn't seen this coming


What? The price increase? Or the people downgrading service due to the price increase? Both of these things happen every single year. Nothing special, nothing new. Go and watch some more SD programming.


----------



## Shades228

dubber deux said:


> * BINGO!!!!*
> 
> Anyone who hasn't seen this coming for the past year or two is either retwarded or living in "the cave" with Osama...


Or it's the same thing that happens every time this year because the NFL promotion start running out. Anyone living in the cabe with Osama would turn him in collect the 10 mil and have premier. You should really think these analogy's through.


----------



## ATARI

Got the letter in the mail today with the new rates announcement.

No surprise, of course, thanks to these forums.


----------



## pfp

Perhaps every provider is raising rates and maybe they have to because all the channels are demanding more money. However there will come a point where many people decide it's just not worth it and I suspect we are getting rather close.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

pfp said:


> Perhaps every provider is raising rates and maybe they have to because all the channels are demanding more money. However there will come a point where many people decide it's just not worth it and I suspect we are getting rather close.


and then all the free video sites will go pay or only be free if you pay for than channel.


----------



## pfp

JoeTheDragon said:


> and then all the free video sites will go pay or only be free if you pay for than channel.


The free video site are really irrelavent untill a tech comes along that allows your mother or grandmother (aka non-geeks) to watch them seamlessly on their living room tv as easilly as watching normal TV. Untill this happens they will won't matter.


----------



## Satelliteracer

raott said:


> Wonderful. Rather than putting the channels in the main packages, stick them in the pack that costs 5 bucks a month. Acting more and more like a cable company all the time.


The base packages will be adding some HD as well, don't fret.


----------



## Satelliteracer

kd4ao said:


> I don't understand announcement of new rates being on dbstalk but never being presented to a subscriber by D* its self. Seems like everyone should get a formal announcement.


Every subscriber does receive a formal announcement in writing. It depends on your bill cycle. Some customers won't receive their announcement until February 8th as they won't see the impact until March 8th. Others will see it as early as February 9th so they were contacted in early January. Basically 30 days out is the general rule, so it all depends on your billing cycle.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

JoeTheDragon said:


> and then all the free video sites will go pay or only be free if you pay for than channel.


*
*Hulu's subscription service might run $5 for access to select shows

And I don't know how much longer high speed cable internet is going to allow that, they'll lose money from their cable side if everyone goes internet only.


----------



## BAHitman

wow...

just looked at TWC's web site for the price list... to have all I get now from DirecTV (6 HDDVR's, 1HD and 2SD recievers ($187 w/ tax), it will cost me $279/mo. so I called them, and they were willing to knock $100 off of that for the first year. given that my bill from Directv will go up by $5/mo it would be a wash for a year, then I would really be paying out the back side... so I figured, while I'm checking let's see what DISH would do for me... looks like they would be about $5/mo cheaper, but they want over $2800 to set this all up... WOW. looks like I ain't goin' nowhere...


----------



## JoeTheDragon

BAHitman said:


> wow...
> 
> just looked at TWC's web site for the price list... to have all I get now from DirecTV (6 HDDVR's, 1HD and 2SD recievers ($187 w/ tax), it will cost me $279/mo. so I called them, and they were willing to knock $100 off of that for the first year. given that my bill from Directv will go up by $5/mo it would be a wash for a year, then I would really be paying out the back side... so I figured, while I'm checking let's see what DISH would do for me... looks like they would be about $5/mo cheaper, but they want over $2800 to set this all up... WOW. looks like I ain't goin' nowhere...


also the cable boxes have much smaller HDD as well.


----------



## hilmar2k

BAHitman said:


> wow...
> 
> just looked at TWC's web site for the price list... to have all I get now from DirecTV (6 HDDVR's, 1HD and 2SD recievers ($187 w/ tax), it will cost me $279/mo. so I called them, and they were willing to knock $100 off of that for the first year. given that my bill from Directv will go up by $5/mo it would be a wash for a year, then I would really be paying out the back side... so I figured, while I'm checking let's see what DISH would do for me... looks like they would be about $5/mo cheaper, but they want over $2800 to set this all up... WOW. looks like I ain't goin' nowhere...


Yup, Comcast wants $55 per month *just for the equipment *to match what I have.


----------



## dubber deux

Jeremy W said:


> What? The price increase? Or the people downgrading service due to the price increase? Both of these things happen every single year. Nothing special, nothing new. Go and watch some more SD programming.


Problem is we have a perfect storm that is combining staggering unemployment, stagnant wages, and a media industry that is determined to throw this in the faces of the average "joe" consumer except this time "joe" or many joes won't be able to tolerate that smug attitude from the industry....heck the unusual part if the story is that even those that previously were insulated from wage and job security issues are now clearly affected as well.

I'm a realist and it is only going to get much worse before it gets better.


----------



## nocaster

I've been a D* subscriber since 2004. My bill has steadily increased over time. All the channels I used to watch, NGC History Discover Science Channel, have switched to running the same show all day long. If I don't like that show, which most of them are now crap, I don't watch. The few that I do like are about 50/50 content and commercials. I honestly don't know why I am paying for this. I have an offer from Dish where I can get a few less channels and pay half of my current bill for 12 months. After that it should go up about $15/mo. While I was looking very seriously at this offer I get an email from D* stating my new increase. I'm ok with loosing a few channels that I rarely, if ever, watch anymore. This is partly the channels fault for not producing good content and also D* fault for charging more for less content.

This price increase comes at a very bad time. Everyone I know is in a bearish mood and wants to decrease their monthly expenses. I would pay a premium for a few channels that I like if they had not watered down their content. As it stands now, it's just not worth it.


----------



## gfrang

Just changed my base package from TC+ to family kept hd access and hdextra pack.Miss History channel,but if i have redraws i will have to move to Dish Network. My bill will be about 55 bucks with Dvr service and extra reciever.


----------



## xmguy

I can't remember if I asked this or not.I currently have the DVR Xtra HD. Will D* increase the package price AND charge a seperate DVR fee now?


----------



## Davenlr

Satelliteracer said:


> The base packages will be adding some HD as well, don't fret.


When are you guys gonna post the channel lineup for the upcoming 2/9/2010 Choice Ultimate package? I know it will have 11 movie channels, but curious if it has the extra RSN channel like Premier does, and if it includes all the channels of Total Choice Plus, or what?


----------



## Shades228

Davenlr said:


> When are you guys gonna post the channel lineup for the upcoming 2/9/2010 Choice Ultimate package? I know it will have 11 movie channels, but curious if it has the extra RSN channel like Premier does, and if it includes all the channels of Total Choice Plus, or what?


You answered your own question.


----------



## joshjr

Shades228 said:


> You answered your own question.


I asked the same question but was told that the package was not really finalized yet but should be by 2/9/10.


----------



## Davenlr

Shades228 said:


> You answered your own question.


No I didnt. I dont know if it will have the second local RSN channel (Premier does, my current package doesnt)
I dont know if it will include all the channels I get now. It would seem rather lame to just make it a copy of Total Choice Plus and add 2 HD and 9 SD movies channels...At least now I can drop the movie channels in the summer and save $12. There has to be some added benefit besides a couple music channels, and some SD movie channels wouldnt you think?
Perhaps adding the HD Extra channels as part of the package? Now that would be a little added value.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Davenlr said:


> No I didnt. I dont know if it will have the second local RSN channel (Premier does, my current package doesnt)
> I dont know if it will include all the channels I get now. It would seem rather lame to just make it a copy of Total Choice Plus and add 2 HD and 9 SD movies channels...At least now I can drop the movie channels in the summer and save $12. There has to be some added benefit besides a couple music channels, and some SD movie channels wouldnt you think?
> Perhaps adding the HD Extra channels as part of the package? Now that would be a little added value.


some of the SD movie channels may be going HD soon.


----------



## Sneezy

dubber deux said:


> Problem is we have a perfect storm that is combining staggering unemployment, stagnant wages, and a media industry that is determined to throw this in the faces of the average "joe" consumer except this time "joe" or many joes won't be able to tolerate that smug attitude from the industry....heck the unusual part if the story is that even those that previously were insulated from wage and job security issues are now clearly affected as well.
> 
> I'm a realist and it is only going to get much worse before it gets better.


Hollywood, aka 'the channels' need to stop paying millions per episode for crap on tv. Thats why prices go up so much.

the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.


----------



## Jeremy W

Sneezy said:


> the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.


If you or anyone else is getting poorer because you subscribe to DirecTV, *drop the service*.


----------



## Shades228

joshjr said:


> I asked the same question but was told that the package was not really finalized yet but should be by 2/9/10.


Companies don't make something like this last minute due to having to check contracts and if they're adding other channels informing the people who own said channels about distrobution/revenue changes.



Davenlr said:


> No I didnt. I dont know if it will have the second local RSN channel (Premier does, my current package doesnt)
> I dont know if it will include all the channels I get now. It would seem rather lame to just make it a copy of Total Choice Plus and add 2 HD and 9 SD movies channels...At least now I can drop the movie channels in the summer and save $12. There has to be some added benefit besides a couple music channels, and some SD movie channels wouldnt you think?
> Perhaps adding the HD Extra channels as part of the package? Now that would be a little added value.


You didn't ask that you asked when the package details would be available for a package that becomes available on 2/9/10. So you did answer the question you asked. Premier has the sports pack in it. No I think adding movie channels into the Choice Xtra package for a nominal increase will appeal to a lot of people. Your second RSN might be available in a higher package not including the sports package or you may be required to carry it either way. You could call and ask. 


Jeremy W said:


> If you or anyone else is getting poorer because you subscribe to DirecTV, *drop the service*.


Technically if you're not getting it for free you are making yourself poorer. However you are correc that tv should never come before something that is life dependant or if you can't afford to save any money each month.


----------



## Davenlr

Shades228 said:


> You didn't ask that you asked when the package details would be available for a package that becomes available on 2/9/10. So you did answer the question you asked.


The package is available 2/9. I asked if anyone had the details. I get all the details on the 2011 line of vehicles 6 months before you can buy them. Since SOMEONE knew what movie channels were included in the package, then SOMEONE knows about the package. As for calling and asking, someone already posted that the CSR claimed to have no information on it.

I agree with your comment that the package, if released 2/9, would already be finalized. Guess they are keeping it a big secret too.


----------



## joshjr

Shades228 said:


> Companies don't make something like this last minute due to having to check contracts and if they're adding other channels informing the people who own said channels about distrobution/revenue changes.


Here is the response I recieved and this is not from a CSR.

The Ultimate package won't be available until 2/9. I could provide current details but we are still in the process of package development; so I'm afraid that the accuracy of the information couldn't be guaranteed at this point. However, DIRECTV.com should be updated on or about that date to reflect the final details of that package.

Hope this helps...

Bobby Vernon


----------



## Davenlr

Is that insider DirecTv speak for "SOON"


----------



## Satelliteracer

Davenlr said:


> When are you guys gonna post the channel lineup for the upcoming 2/9/2010 Choice Ultimate package? I know it will have 11 movie channels, but curious if it has the extra RSN channel like Premier does, and if it includes all the channels of Total Choice Plus, or what?


Same as CHOICE XTRA with the 11 movie channels already mentioned here and a few extra music channels.

Package is available on 2/9/10.


----------



## Paul Secic

Jeremy W said:


> If you or anyone else is getting poorer because you subscribe to DirecTV, *drop the service*.


Or drop a tier or two.


----------



## xmguy

I dropped my HD Xtra for the price increase. Thanks D*!


----------



## Shades228

Davenlr said:


> The package is available 2/9. I asked if anyone had the details. I get all the details on the 2011 line of vehicles 6 months before you can buy them. Since SOMEONE knew what movie channels were included in the package, then SOMEONE knows about the package. As for calling and asking, someone already posted that the CSR claimed to have no information on it.
> 
> I agree with your comment that the package, if released 2/9, would already be finalized. Guess they are keeping it a big secret too.


Automotive industry is completely different in terms of this. They plan out production years in advance and there are relatively little changes made year to year on same model designs.



joshjr said:


> Here is the response I recieved and this is not from a CSR.
> 
> The Ultimate package won't be available until 2/9. I could provide current details but we are still in the process of package development; so I'm afraid that the accuracy of the information couldn't be guaranteed at this point. However, DIRECTV.com should be updated on or about that date to reflect the final details of that package.
> 
> Hope this helps...
> 
> Bobby Vernon


Which sounds much better than "Yes we know but we're not going to tell you." Is it impossible something could change from now until 2/9? No it's not but it's very improbable. They won't release details about it this early as it will just drive call volume that could not be resolved.


----------



## Davenlr

Satelliteracer said:


> Same as CHOICE XTRA with the 11 movie channels already mentioned here and a few extra music channels.
> 
> Package is available on 2/9/10.


Thanks.


----------



## dubber deux

nocaster said:


> I've been a D* subscriber since 2004. My bill has steadily increased over time. All the channels I used to watch, NGC History Discover Science Channel, have switched to running the same show all day long. If I don't like that show, which most of them are now crap, I don't watch. The few that I do like are about 50/50 content and commercials. I honestly don't know why I am paying for this. I have an offer from Dish where I can get a few less channels and pay half of my current bill for 12 months. After that it should go up about $15/mo. While I was looking very seriously at this offer I get an email from D* stating my new increase. I'm ok with loosing a few channels that I rarely, if ever, watch anymore. This is partly the channels fault for not producing good content and also D* fault for charging more for less content.
> 
> This price increase comes at a very bad time. Everyone I know is in a bearish mood and wants to decrease their monthly expenses. I would pay a premium for a few channels that I like if they had not watered down their content. As it stands now, it's just not worth it.


Very astute observations indeed!

I find myself noticing over the past five years or so the increasing percentage of commercial vs content on those channels you mention..Frankly it annoys me to no end...it like a subtle way of ripping the customer off hoping they don't notice maybe due to having the DVR or whatever...I DO notice and I do take this into consideration when renewal is due.

This isn't only D* issue really...but in the end it will encourage me to drop my service in the end.


----------



## wingrider01

dubber deux said:


> Very astute observations indeed!
> 
> I find myself noticing over the past five years or so the increasing percentage of commercial vs content on those channels you mention..Frankly it annoys me to no end...it like a subtle way of ripping the customer off hoping they don't notice maybe due to having the DVR or whatever...I DO notice and I do take this into consideration when renewal is due.
> 
> This isn't only D* issue really...but in the end it will encourage me to drop my service in the end.


curious how to you equate the statement - " commercial vs content " as being Directv's fault as you imply? Diectv has 0 control over when the channel broadcasts, seems like the proper people to complain to id the content providers not transport providers


----------



## hdtvfan0001

To me....I'm not all that concerned about the nominal rate changes as of 2/9/10.

I'm more interested in any pricing impact once the D12 sat goes live and adds new channels in 2Q 2010 - there is reason to believe that this will afford the opportunity to have them "repackage" channels perhaps. Until then, I'm not going to get too riled up about it all.


----------



## Tron

I guess I'll plan on the Premier package being at least $140/month by 2015 (more likely $149.99) and the DVR fee about $10. And -maybe- the HD fee will stay at $10....So that's at least $160/month for 1 receiver. Oh wait, 6% state 'because-we-can' tax...that makes it about $170. Hmm... should be interesting to see what the breaking point is for most people!


----------



## Paul Secic

dubber deux said:


> Very astute observations indeed!
> 
> I find myself noticing over the past five years or so the increasing percentage of commercial vs content on those channels you mention..Frankly it annoys me to no end...it like a subtle way of ripping the customer off hoping they don't notice maybe due to having the DVR or whatever...I DO notice and I do take this into consideration when renewal is due.
> 
> This isn't only D* issue really...but in the end it will encourage me to drop my service in the end.


You'd think providers would give us a break.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Tron said:


> I guess I'll plan on the Premier package being at least $140/month by 2015 (more likely $149.99) and the DVR fee about $10. And -maybe- the HD fee will stay at $10....So that's at least $160/month for 1 receiver. Oh wait, 6% state 'because-we-can' tax...that makes it about $170. Hmm... should be interesting to see what the breaking point is for most people!


I think by then HD will be build in the base price.


----------



## dubber deux

wingrider01 said:


> curious how to you equate the statement - " commercial vs content " as being Directv's fault as you imply? Diectv has 0 control over when the channel broadcasts, seems like the proper people to complain to id the content providers not transport providers


I don't think it is D* that is SOLELY at fault here....BUT if the content providers are supplimenting their profits (and reducing their costs) by way of additional ad spots then D* should on behalf of the subscriber argue about the cost of the providers content...believe me a 50/50 ratio of content to commercial is NOT reasonable at all considering the costs we pay as subs....

Bottom line is D* should be acting on behalf of the customer in this case.


----------



## sigma1914

dubber deux said:


> I don't think it is D* that is SOLELY at fault here....BUT if the content providers are supplimenting their profits (and reducing their costs) by way of additional ad spots then D* should on behalf of the subscriber argue about the cost of the providers content...believe me a 50/50 ratio of content to commercial is NOT reasonable at all considering the costs we pay as subs....
> 
> Bottom line is D* should be acting on behalf of the customer in this case.


Do you ever not make up info?  You realize your 50/50 claim is completely *bogus*? A 1 hour show is typically 42 to 47 minutes of show and 13 to 18 minutes commercial. A 30 minute program is 19.5 to 22 minutes of show and 10.5 to 8 minutes commercial.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> A 1 hour show is typically 42 to 47 minutes of show and 13 to 18 minutes commercial. A 30 minute program is 19.5 to 22 minutes of show and 10.5 to 8 minutes commercial.


My DVR would be glad to testify in court on your numbers...they are correct in most cases.


----------



## SoCool

Tron said:


> I guess I'll plan on the Premier package being at least $140/month by 2015 (more likely $149.99) and the DVR fee about $10. And -maybe- the HD fee will stay at $10....So that's at least $160/month for 1 receiver. Oh wait, 6% state 'because-we-can' tax...that makes it about $170. Hmm... should be interesting to see what the breaking point is for most people!


Fot that kind of payment you could buy a car! :lol: TV is almost like a car, once you have one it's kind of hard to give it up. The service companies know this. So they figure if you want all the bells and whistles your gonna have to pay. You know as soon as you cancel your Premier package there will be a new show that comes on and now you can't watch it! Even though they do it because they can, it's still doesn't seem right.  Subscribing is sort of a luxury that is not quite as important as say, paying the power bill or buying groceries for your family. In the end, it becomes a personal decision. How important is it to have a subscription to satellite TV? After reading through all of the post's it seems that TV is real important to a lot of people including myself. So I will deal with the increase and see what the future brings to the table. In my opinion, DirecTV provides the out and out best TV service of all the providers. Switching now may seem like a good idea, down the road you may eventually pay more through fees and hidden charges. This happens every year.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> My DVR would be glad to testify in court on your numbers...they are correct in most cases.


:lol: I appreciate the backing. I based my findings on many downloaded torrents of shows & Netflix shows, both of which, have no commercials.

*Disclaimer: Don't download and distribute torrents*


----------



## dubber deux

sigma1914 said:


> Do you ever not make up info?  You realize your 50/50 claim is completely *bogus*? A 1 hour show is typically 42 to 47 minutes of show and 13 to 18 minutes commercial. A 30 minute program is 19.5 to 22 minutes of show and 10.5 to 8 minutes commercial.


*The bottom line is that even what YOU quote is TOO LITTLE program content for the money!*

Of course considering that you sigma are the ultimate PR guy here for the media I'm not surprised that you would defend them at any cost.

If its not exactly 50% is is darn close on a number of programs I have been watching usually on Discovery Networks and NGC, along with others from Tru,

I have specifically monitored several and a few of those contain LESS than what you quote above ,that is WAY too much ad spot/promo usage if you ask me...anything LESS than 1hr (51min) or 30min (4min) the consumer is getting gypped.


----------



## Jeremy W

dubber deux said:


> I have specifically monitored several and a few of those "1 hr" programs contain only 37 minutes of content.


I don't know what programs you're referring to, but they're definitely not any that I've watched. And they're clearly in the minority, while you're trying to make it seem like all programming is 50/50 content and commercials. You shouldn't need to resort to extreme hyperbole to make your point. The problem is, you don't really have a point.


----------



## dubber deux

sigma1914 said:


> A 1 hour show is typically 42 to 47 minutes of show and 13 to 18 minutes commercial. A 30 minute program is 19.5 to 22 minutes of show and 10.5 to 8 minutes commercial.


*I'm glad the medias' best friend on DBStalk made the point for me....*:lol:

Give or take a minute the above is TOO much ad time/vs content time..for what we subs pay.

I also noticed that as soon as I and others mentioned this, the "distractors" came out in force...I wonder why? You doth protest too much.


----------



## sigma1914

dubber deux said:


> *The bottom line is that even what YOU quote is TOO LITTLE program content for the money!*
> 
> Of course considering that you sigma are the ultimate PR guy here for the media I'm not surprised that you would defend them at any cost.
> 
> If its not exactly 50% is is darn close on a number of programs I have been watching usually on Discovery Networks and NGC, along with others from Tru,
> 
> I have specifically monitored several and a few of those contain LESS than what you quote above ,that is WAY too much ad spot/promo usage if you ask me...anything LESS than 1hr (51min) or 30min (4min) the consumer is getting gypped.


"The bottom line is that even what YOU quote is TOO LITTLE program content for the money!" Bottom line is D* should be acting on behalf of the customer..."
That's 2 bottom lines you now have. 

Name calling, now? Cute.  Why would you say I'm the "ultimate PR guy here for the media?" Because I provided you statistical facts to prove your 50/50 claim as bogus?

Here's more facts: Of the last 7 episodes of the popular AMC show, Mad Men, the shortest episode was 46min 32sec. That's far from 50%, it's 77.5%
Last week's Dirty Jobs on *your *Discovery Channel was 43min 30sec. That's 72.5%...not 50/50.

Keep trying to make up more "bottom lines," because as Jeremy said, don't really have a point.


----------



## sigma1914

dubber deux said:


> *I'm glad the medias' best friend on DBStalk made the point for me....*:lol:


Name calling...mature.



> Give or take a minute the above is TOO much ad time/vs content time..for what we subs pay.


Then, don't pay. OTA is free.



> I also noticed that as soon as I and others mentioned this, the "distractors" came out in force...I wonder why? You doth protest too much.


Because most of your posts are wrong.


----------



## dubber deux

Sigma....you ARE protesting too much! 

You really do give off the "airs" of someone who is a PR agent. I'm not joking, that is how you come across. 

The facts are clear, subs are complaining about too much ad time and too little content time in programming. The times YOU quote yourself are evidence, heck you don't have to quote me, YOU made the point for me. I couldn't do it better myself. Thanks!


----------



## sigma1914

dubber deux said:


> Sigma....you ARE protesting too much!
> 
> You really do give off the "airs" of someone who is a PR agent. I'm not joking, that is how you come across.
> 
> The facts are clear, subs are complaining about too much ad time and too little content time in programming. The times YOU quote yourself are evidence, heck you don't have to quote me, YOU made the point for me. I couldn't do it better myself. Thanks!


I never quoted myself. I quoted you and your wrongful information. I didn't back up your point, I disproved your absurd claim of 50% ad time, which you then changed to nearly 50% and you were still wrong.


----------



## Jeremy W

dubber deux said:


> The facts are clear, subs are complaining about too much ad time and too little content time in programming.


Yes, all two or three people in this thread. 

What good is complaining in this thread supposed to do? Have you ever bothered writing a single letter to any of the networks you have a problem with? Are they magically supposed to know about all of the dissatisfied people out there if nobody says anything to them?


----------



## Lord Vader

Psychic powers, Jeremy. Either that or the Force!


----------



## David MacLeod

Jeremy W said:


> Yes, all two or three people in this thread.
> 
> What good is complaining in this thread supposed to do? Have you ever bothered writing a single letter to any of the networks you have a problem with? Are they magically supposed to know about all of the dissatisfied people out there if nobody says anything to them?


you know darn well letters have been sent.....cause the ceo's did not return calls.


----------



## PennHORN

I have had DirecTV for 2.5 years now and have always had Premier. I switched to Choice Xtra with HBO last week. I have generally always had the top of the line programming package whether on cable or satellite.

Premier has become a terrible value and the price per month has gone up from $99 a month to $114 a month since September 2007 when I signed up. DirecTV's lineup of HD premiums is paltry and I realized we were not watching these channels. Premiums seem to me to be unnecessary in this day and age. I kept HBO reluctantly just to keep my wife happy.

I have Cat5e cabling throughout my home and have a PS3 with a 1.5 TB Synology NAS where I store movies and shows. I use the PS3 to stream the NAS's contents and am very happy with the results. I am a big sports fan so I unfortunately have to keep a somewhat expensive package. If not, I would drop all pay TV entirely. 

I love Sunday Ticket and have had it the past 3 seasons. The costs keep going up and there are fewer games on that package every year it seems. As a Texans season ticket holder, I don't maximize the value of it since I miss a lot of the programming for the 8 home games that I go to. If ther is an increase, I will pass this year.


----------



## dcowboy7

PennHORN said:


> I love Sunday Ticket and have had it the past 3 seasons. The costs keep going up and there are fewer games on that package every year it seems.


How were there less games on ST in 2009 than 2008 ?


----------



## Beerstalker

I was wondering the same thing. The only time I can think of that the number of games would have went down on Sunday ticket was in 2006, when the NFL network started airing 8 games a year (those games are available to anyone with the NFL network, not just Sunday Ticket subscribers). The number of games should be the same ever since 2006.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Beerstalker said:


> I was wondering the same thing. The only time I can think of that the number of games would have went down on Sunday ticket was in 2006, when the NFL network started airing 8 games a year (those games are available to anyone with the NFL network, not just Sunday Ticket subscribers). The number of games should be the same ever since 2006.


The number of exclusive games varies by team each year....but that's it.

Some years, I get my favorite team on Monday Night Football (ESPN), Sunday Night Football (NBC), Thursday Night Football (NFL Network)...which I can see without even having NFL Sunday Ticket.

The past 2 years, that was 5 and 7 games out of 16. To see them all, it takes NFL ST.


----------



## Jeremy W

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Some years, I get my favorite team on Monday Night Football (ESPN), Sunday Night Football (NBC), Thursday Night Football (NFL Network)


Must be nice. There's only one team that hasn't been featured in primetime since the new format took effect in 2005, and that would be my Detroit Lions. :nono:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jeremy W said:


> Must be nice. There's only one team that hasn't been featured in primetime since the new format took effect in 2005, and that would be my Detroit Lions. :nono:


Wonder why.....

Here's something I bet you've never heard.....maybe next year... :lol:


----------



## Davenlr

I would have sworn the Green Bay Packer/Detroit Lions game was on Primetime this year, because I watched it (Im a Packer fan, but dont have Sunday Ticket).


----------



## Jeremy W

Davenlr said:


> I would have sworn the Green Bay Packer/Detroit Lions game was on Primetime this year, because I watched it (Im a Packer fan, but dont have Sunday Ticket).


It was a national game (Thanksgiving Day) but it wasn't primetime. Detroit gets shown nationally every Thanksgiving.


----------



## trainman

Jeremy W said:


> Detroit gets shown nationally every Thanksgiving.


At least displaced Lions fans had that. My Bucs didn't get any national games this past season (admittedly, for good reason), and I don't think they had any games air locally (in full) on Fox or CBS here in Los Angeles. So I _really_ got to take advantage of Sunday Ticket this year.


----------



## Shades228

Lions, Bucs, Jags, and Raiders fans that were not in the local market with NFLST saw more games this year than fans living in the market due to blackouts.


----------



## dcowboy7

Shades228 said:


> Lions, *Bucs*, Jags, and Raiders fans that were not in the local market with NFLST saw more games this year than fans living in the market due to blackouts.


Bucs sold out all 8 games -- 0 blackouts.


----------



## trainman

dcowboy7 said:


> Bucs sold out all 8 games -- 0 blackouts.


And only 7 of those were in Tampa -- their game against the Patriots in London counted as a home game for them.


----------



## codespy

......and now back to regularly scheduled programming.

Been with DTV (premier) since '98 and contacted them the other day if grandfathered DVR service is getting dropped. This was their response:

_"Thanks for writing. I understand your concern about the changes in the pricing. I see that you've been with us for several years and we truly appreciate your business.

You'll be able to get DVR service for free since it is included in the PREMIER package for the first 6 months. However, please be advised that only customers who had Premier and DVR (or HD-DVR) receivers active before July 12, 2007 get DVR Service at no additional cost."_

I guess we'll see after new bills arrive.


----------



## xmguy

codespy said:


> ......and now back to regularly scheduled programming.
> 
> Been with DTV (premier) since '98 and contacted them the other day if grandfathered DVR service is getting dropped. This was their response:
> 
> _"Thanks for writing. I understand your concern about the changes in the pricing. I see that you've been with us for several years and we truly appreciate your business.
> 
> You'll be able to get DVR service for free since it is included in the PREMIER package for the first 6 months. However, please be advised that only customers who had Premier and DVR (or HD-DVR) receivers active before July 12, 2007 get DVR Service at no additional cost."_
> 
> I guess we'll see after new bills arrive.


I know I've already asked but this comment has me worried if the DVR fee will no longer be included in the "CHOICE XTRA™ + HD DVR" package. So basically the package charge will go up from $75 to $79* AND * a SEPERATE DVR charge will be added.
Am I right or wrong?


----------



## Jeremy W

xmguy said:


> Am I right or wrong?


Wrong. It's still included.


----------



## xmguy

Jeremy W said:


> Wrong. It's still included.


ok


----------



## Loppy101

Should I stick with the old "TOTAL CHOICE® PLUS", or switch to "TOTAL CHOICE® XTRA"? Does anyone know what differences there are between the two packages, besides $2.50? THANKS!


----------



## dubber deux

I got a really good laugh when I just caught the latest E* tv spot commenting about how many celebs were paid to endorse D* it was about a dozen or so....E* ....NONE!

Perhaps that why E* customers spend significantly less on their bill vs D*...


----------



## Shades228

dubber deux said:


> I got a really good laugh when I just caught the latest E* tv spot commenting about how many celebs were paid to endorse D* it was about a dozen or so....E* ....NONE!
> 
> Perhaps that why E* customers spend significantly less on their bill vs D*...


Admitting that you buy into a commercial is not wise in public. Ff E* is so good ask them to pay your ecf.


----------



## dubber deux

Shades228 said:


> Admitting that you buy into a commercial is not wise in public. Ff E* is so good ask them to pay your ecf.


\

*I'm NOT "buying into" their tv spot, I'm approving of it because their facts are 100% correct. *
:read:

Please tell me you're NOT a PR mouth piece for D*.


----------



## Mark L

bills976 said:


> Total Choice used to be $53.99. It was $47.99 back in 2007. That's a $10 price increase in 3 years, or a 21% increase in price over 3 years.
> 
> DVR fees are a joke in the first place - I'd like to know their justification in raising them 16% over last year's rate.





CJTE said:


> Good Gosh!
> Those prices are a damn joke.
> $115 for premier? Which 2 years ago was $100 + $10 for HD Access and included the DVR service? So now we're paying $130 for premier service with HD and DVR, and 1 receiver!
> 
> And what about those of us with Plus HD DVR (like ME!)? That option isn't even listed!





ffemtreed said:


> what a great time in our economy to raise prices! I know its only 5 bucks more, now but I been saying that for 3 years now, I can't justify paying these price increases. Soon they are going to be charging me more for MRV as well.... nickle and dime... nickle and dime.....
> 
> Bye Bye Premier for me, without VS, I am probably going to drop down to the base package and ride out my contract. I wish the feds would force DTV to let people out of their contract when they raise the prices. It seems very one sided to me.


Yes, yes, and yes!!!!!!!!!!

I am so damn sick and tired of the Premier package increases!!! :nono2:

It's gone up $5/month for the last 3 years now!

It went up from $99.99 to $104.99 to $109.99, now to $114.99!!!

That's it, goodbye premier!

I am tired of this crap, after 8 years, DirecTV is done.

Their DVRs suck, Tivo was the best one they ever had. Time and time again I keep hearing "The new firmware will fix that", blah blah blah, their hardware sucks!

Time to start looking into online media streaming and upping my internet bandwidth. Hello piracy, here I come


----------



## Lord Vader

Mark L said:


> Hello piracy, here I come


First, that's illegal. Second, it's not possible. Both DirecTV's and DISH's signals are secure. Neither system can be hacked.


----------



## Blurayfan

Lord Vader said:


> First, that's illegal. Second, it's not possible. Both DirecTV's and DISH's signals are secure. Neither system can be hacked.


I don't believe the poster was referring to pirating Dish or DirecTV.


Mark L said:


> Time to start looking into online media streaming and upping my internet bandwidth. Hello piracy, here I come


----------



## ATARI

Welcome to rate increase day -- 2/9.


----------



## Mark Walters

Mark L said:


> I am tired of this crap, after 8 years, DirecTV is done.
> 
> Their DVRs suck, Tivo was the best one they ever had. Time and time again I keep hearing "The new firmware will fix that", blah blah blah, their hardware sucks!


I couldn't agree more. These D* HDDVR's are complete garbage.


----------



## LameLefty

Mark Walters said:


> I couldn't agree more. These D* HDDVR's are complete garbage.


Then switch.


----------



## Mark Walters

LameLefty said:


> Then switch.


What you think you're dropping a bombshell here? You think it's that easy?...oh just switch. Yeah, I'll send you the bill. Yeah you take care of that. Didn't see in the contract where it said, you're going to get multiple pieces of *hit boxes. Perhaps you can pull that out for me.

It's simple - You don't need to switch..you just need to FIX...Just fix the problems that so many people are experiencing with audio dropouts and lagging remote controls or bring back the Tivo and get it done with and this problem is solved. Leave it to a company who specializes in making breakthrough products where an actual remote control can control the device. I know sounds like I'm asking for so much. OH but just switch.. Yeah that's a solution! Why don't you use that solution whenever anything in your life doesn't work properly? You'll be doing 360's and switching all day, everyday... Hey thanks for the mundane reply. How about instead we fix the damn problems that a myriad of people have expressed as problems on this thing! Is that copacetic with you?

Your method would double my price and not guarantee any fixes. Your approach creates more problems. If you look around these forums, tons of people are experiencing these problems...Just look around...they want fixes...

Doesn't this remind you of health care? Instead of fixing the problems that exist...you want to switch and overhaul everything. It caused more problems didn't it! Looks like the majority were heard and health care will not be simply switched because it would of been the simple and dumb thing to do.

Maybe your coffee is cold - switch the brand! Right? That's what your thought process is telling me to do. Think about it.. warm up the coffee or ask for a fresher cup and it's fixed. Why would I spend more money on a second cup (different brand) when the first cup (initial brand) is capable of satisfying my selfish needs of a warm coffee or say a remote that controls a freaking box?

Get outta here!


----------



## Maleman

Mmmm I really don't see the difference in packages. I have the "choice extra + HDPVR" package for $75.99 on promotion for another 3-4 months.

How is the new "Choice Ultimate Package" different? Are there "more" HD channels?

Thanks

I also believe if I "was" to switch I would not get the promotion price I am getting currently with my package.?


----------



## radiomandc

Mark Walters said:


> What you think you're dropping a bombshell here? You think it's that easy?...oh just switch. Yeah, I'll send you the bill. Yeah you take care of that. Didn't see in the contract where it said, you're going to get multiple pieces of *hit boxes. Perhaps you can pull that out for me.
> 
> It's simple - You don't need to switch..you just need to FIX...Just fix the problems that so many people are experiencing with audio dropouts and lagging remote controls or bring back the Tivo and get it done with and this problem is solved. Leave it to a company who specializes in making breakthrough products where an actual remote control can control the device. I know sounds like I'm asking for so much. OH but just switch.. Yeah that's a solution! Why don't you use that solution whenever anything in your life doesn't work properly? You'll be doing 360's and switching all day, everyday... Hey thanks for the mundane reply. How about instead we fix the damn problems that a myriad of people have expressed as problems on this thing! Is that copacetic with you?
> 
> Your method would double my price and not guarantee any fixes. Your approach creates more problems. If you look around these forums, tons of people are experiencing these problems...Just look around...they want fixes...
> 
> Doesn't this remind you of health care? Instead of fixing the problems that exist...you want to switch and overhaul everything. It caused more problems didn't it! Looks like the majority were heard and health care will not be simply switched because it would of been the simple and dumb thing to do.
> 
> Maybe your coffee is cold - switch the brand! Right? That's what your thought process is telling me to do. Think about it.. warm up the coffee or ask for a fresher cup and it's fixed. Why would I spend more money on a second cup (different brand) when the first cup (initial brand) is capable of satisfying my selfish needs of a warm coffee or say a remote that controls a freaking box?
> 
> Get outta here!


Easy.....Easy.... Let's calm down.


----------



## Blurayfan

Maleman said:


> Mmmm I really don't see the difference in packages. I have the "choice extra + HDPVR" package for $75.99 on promotion for another 3-4 months.
> 
> How is the new "Choice Ultimate Package" different? Are there "more" HD channels?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> I also believe if I "was" to switch I would not get the promotion price I am getting currently with my package.?


The new package is $68.99 it is essentially Choice Xtra + 11 premiums.

Unless part of your promo locked your package price HD DVR has increased to $79.99 effective today and billed on your next billing cycle.

If you upgraded to the new package the prices will look like the example below.

Choice Ultimate $68.99
HD Access $10.00
DVR Service $7.00
--------------------
New Total $85.99


----------



## Maleman

DVDKingdom said:


> The new package is $68.99 it is essentially Choice Xtra + 11 premiums.
> 
> Unless part of your promo locked your package price HD DVR has increased to $79.99 effective today and billed on your next billing cycle.
> 
> If you upgraded to the new package
> Choice Ultimate $68.99
> HD Accexx $10.00
> DVR Service $7.00
> --------------------
> New Total $85.99


Thanks very much. I will try and find the premium channels added. I couldn't find any a few minutes ago.


----------



## Blurayfan

Maleman said:


> Thanks very much. I will try and find the premium channels added. I couldn't find any a few minutes ago.


The premiums included in Choice Ultimate.

526 Encore East
527 Encore West
528 Encore Love
529 Encore Westerns
530 Encore Mystery
531 Encore Drama
532 Encore Action
533 Encore WAM
544 TMC East
545 TMC West
549 Sundance


----------



## kmax

So then how much is it to tack on the rest of the starz channels?


----------



## ffemtreed

Lord Vader said:


> First, that's illegal. Second, it's not possible. Both DirecTV's and DISH's signals are secure. Neither system can be hacked.


Your statement should be can't EASILY be hacked. Anything can be hacked!


----------



## Blurayfan

kmax said:


> So then how much is it to tack on the rest of the starz channels?


After calling DirecTV it seems in order to get the complete Starz or Showtime packages you need to downgrade back to Choice Xtra.


----------



## dlt4

I just checked my account and it's still showing my TC package at $53.99 and DVR fee of $6. Does anybody know if these prices should have been updated by now?


----------



## Blurayfan

dlt4 said:


> I just checked my account and it's still showing my TC package at $53.99 and DVR fee of $6. Does anybody know if these prices should have been updated by now?


Not if that's listed on your current programming page, those prices are what you were charged on your last statement. The prices will update when your next statement is issued.


----------



## Beerstalker

DVDKingdom said:


> After calling DirecTV it seems in order to get the complete Starz or Showtime packages you need to downgrade back to Choice Xtra.


But then you miss out on the extra music channels only in Ultimate don't you? (Not that I personally care, but someone might).

I don't think they really thought this Ultimate package out that well.


----------



## Satelliteracer

dubber deux said:


> I got a really good laugh when I just caught the latest E* tv spot commenting about how many celebs were paid to endorse D* it was about a dozen or so....E* ....NONE!
> 
> Perhaps that why E* customers spend significantly less on their bill vs D*...


Ad already pulled down by E*

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/02/05/dish-network-pulls-ad-questioning-celebrity-endorsements/


----------



## Justin23

Satelliteracer said:


> Ad already pulled down by E*
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/02/05/dish-network-pulls-ad-questioning-celebrity-endorsements/


They must be finding ways to spend that "Frank Caliendo" money now that he isn't a spokesperson anymore...:lol:


----------



## wingrider01

dlt4 said:


> I just checked my account and it's still showing my TC package at $53.99 and DVR fee of $6. Does anybody know if these prices should have been updated by now?


Your account os probably like mine - the price increase takes affect a day or two after the end of your billing cycle.


----------



## xmguy

I wanted to remove the HD Xtra package. Looks like DVR cost ISN"T included in package anymore plus my channels I currently have in the Choice Xtra HD+ DVR package isn't available. I get this error when I try to remove HD Xtra. Now I don't know how to get HD Xtra off.

" 

Before you can make any changes to your account you are required to change your package.








*Why do I have to change my package?* You have an older package that does not support the programming/service you have selected.
*Can I switch back if I change my mind?* No, since we no longer offer your old (discontinued) package, you cannot switch back once you've changed."


----------



## Jeremy W

xmguy said:


> I get this error when I try to remove HD Xtra. Now I don't know how to get HD Xtra off.


Welcome to life with a grandfathered package! You have to call to make any changes from now on. DirecTV does not allow subscribers with a grandfathered package to make changes online. I can only assume they do this to annoy us, to try and prod us into switching to a current package.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Nice to see DIRECTV hit their target Feb 9th rate increase. 

If the rate increase was an HD channel, we’d still be waiting.


----------



## xmguy

Jeremy W said:


> Welcome to life with a grandfathered package! You have to call to make any changes from now on. DirecTV does not allow subscribers with a grandfathered package to make changes online. I can only assume they do this to annoy us, to try and prod us into switching to a current package.


Does this mean my price won't go up, At least until my contract is up? My bill has already been generated and my account still shows 75.99 for the Choice Xtra HD+ DVR


----------



## Jeremy W

xmguy said:


> Does this mean my price won't go up, At least until my contract is up?


Your contract means nothing as far as a price lock goes. If you signed up within the past year, there is a chance you could be under a price lock, and your price won't go up until that lock expires. But if you're not under a price lock, your next bill will reflect the new price.


----------



## MikeW

I tried to remove the HD Extra pack on Saturday. I got a message saying it was successful. I even got an e-mail confirmation. After an hour, I saw that the package was still on, so I cancelled again and again and again. Finally, I sent an e-mail to customer support and they removed it. The snotty response also said that their system showed I was trying to remove HD access. I forwarded them a copy of my confirmation stating it was HD Extra Pack and received a generic reply.

Send an e-mail through "contact us" and see what happens.


----------



## xmguy

Jeremy W said:


> Your contract means nothing as far as a price lock goes. If you signed up within the past year, there is a chance you could be under a price lock, and your price won't go up until that lock expires. But if you're not under a price lock, your next bill will reflect the new price.


No I've had D* since 2008.


----------



## xmguy

MikeW said:


> I tried to remove the HD Extra pack on Saturday. I got a message saying it was successful. I even got an e-mail confirmation. After an hour, I saw that the package was still on, so I cancelled again and again and again. Finally, I sent an e-mail to customer support and they removed it. The snotty response also said that their system showed I was trying to remove HD access. I forwarded them a copy of my confirmation stating it was HD Extra Pack and received a generic reply.
> 
> Send an e-mail through "contact us" and see what happens.


I also removed HD Xtra from my account 2 weeks ago. Everytime I tried to remove it it said it went through but was still on my account.


----------



## JLucPicard

xmguy said:


> Does this mean my price won't go up, At least until my contract is up? My bill has already been generated and my account still shows 75.99 for the Choice Xtra HD+ DVR


The price increases affect your account in the first billing cycle following the change date (today). Your next bill will reflect the increase.


----------



## wingrider01

xmguy said:


> I wanted to remove the HD Xtra package. Looks like DVR cost ISN"T included in package anymore plus my channels I currently have in the Choice Xtra HD+ DVR package isn't available. I get this error when I try to remove HD Xtra. Now I don't know how to get HD Xtra off.
> 
> "
> 
> Before you can make any changes to your account you are required to change your package.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do I have to change my package?* You have an older package that does not support the programming/service you have selected.
> *Can I switch back if I change my mind?* No, since we no longer offer your old (discontinued) package, you cannot switch back once you've changed."


did you try calling them? Believe the website does this


----------



## SParker

So if you have HD Extra w/DVR and you upgraded to Ultimate you wouldn't just be paying $5 more but another $7 because DVR isn't included with Ult?


----------



## Jeremy W

SParker said:


> So if you have HD Extra w/DVR and you upgraded to Ultimate you wouldn't just be paying $5 more but another $7 because DVR isn't included with Ult?


You're forgetting the fact that Xtra with HD & DVR isn't $5 less than Ultimate.


----------



## SParker

Jeremy W said:


> You're forgetting the fact that Xtra with HD & DVR isn't $5 less than Ultimate.


What is the difference?


----------



## Lord Vader

Five dollars.


----------



## Lodi25

*All I can say is, DirecTV is nuts for raising the prices during a recession!! What the hell has DirecTV been smoking?? *


----------



## codespy

Lodi25 said:


> *All I can say is, DirecTV is nuts for raising the prices during a recession!! What the hell has DirecTV been smoking?? *


When they dropped HD Access from $10.99 to $9.99 a couple years ago I don't remember you praising or saying anything for that price drop. :sure:


----------



## Hutchinshouse

codespy said:


> When they dropped HD Access from $10.99 to $9.99 a couple years ago I don't remember you praising or saying anything for that price drop. :sure:


Checkout:

Lodi25's "Join Date: Jun 22, 2009"

Not a member a couple of years ago :lol:


----------



## codespy

Man those prescription drugs I take work good!


----------



## Lodi25

*We are in a recession and many people are out of a job or working for less money. And DirecTV thinks it's ok to raise the prices?? :eek2: Oh and when was the last time DirecTV added any new HD channels? And still no VERSUS or MSNBC-HD! *


----------



## codespy

OK- just dropped a receiver on my account to offset the $5.00 premier increase.

DirecTV net gain on my account for 2010 increase = $0.00 and I also save $11.00 a month on electricity usage for one DVR.

When they drop grandfathered free DVR service, then I drop premier.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Lodi25 said:


> *We are in a recession and many people are out of a job or working for less money. And DirecTV thinks it's ok to raise the prices?? :eek2: Oh and when was the last time DirecTV added any new HD channels? And still no VERSUS or MSNBC-HD! *


Dish, Cable, u-verse also raise prices as well.


----------



## Lord Vader

Lodi25 said:


> * And still no VERSUS or MSNBC-HD! *


If it meant no more exposure to that vile piece of human debris known as Keith Olbermann, I'd favor removing MSNBC from the channel lineup altogether--No HD *or *SD.


----------



## JLucPicard

Lodi25 said:


> *We are in a recession and many people are out of a job or working for less money. And DirecTV thinks it's ok to raise the prices?? :eek2:*


I would be very surprised if the carriage agreements that DirecTV has with all the content providers have clauses in the contracts indicating that the graduated increases in their rates over time do not apply if the country happens to be in a recession.

DirecTV is in business to provide television service to their customers at a profit to their investors - not to provide charity to their customers. As is being discussed at length in several threads, we as consumers can choose to pay the increased rates or cut back our services to what we feel confortable with.

Many television providers and many, many other businesses are raising their prices as well.

And before anyone asks, no, I do not work for DirecTV. I'm just a subscriber like most everyone else here.

And sorry, didn't feel the need to bold or enlarge the font to state my opinion.


----------



## Jeremy W

SParker said:


> What is the difference?


The Plus HD DVR package is the same price as Xtra with HD and DVR added on. So when it comes down to it, the actual difference in price is


Lord Vader said:


> Five dollars.


----------



## Shades228

Jeremy W said:


> The Plus HD DVR package is the same price as Xtra with HD and DVR added on. So when it comes down to it, the actual difference in price is


Actually it was $1 less.


----------



## ffemtreed

everyone says that other providers are raising prices as well, while that is true they are also adding more channels and listing to what there customers want.

How many other major providers won't have MSNBC available in HD for the Olympics? The self proclaimed world leader in sports...... Yeah Right! Maybe 4 years ago that was true.


----------



## paulman182

Lodi25 said:


> *We are in a recession and many people are out of a job or working for less money. And DirecTV thinks it's ok to raise the prices?? :eek2: *


*

Maybe they raised prices to avoid laying off workers or cutting their salary.*


----------



## harsh

JLucPicard said:


> DirecTV is in business to provide television service to their customers at a profit to their investors - not to provide charity to their customers.


In the past few months, DIRECTV has become all about profit to their investors (now represented in a decided majority by Liberty). As long as the primary focus is to create a better investment, customer value is likely to suffer.


----------



## Hoosier205

harsh said:


> In the past few months, DIRECTV has become all about profit to their investors (now represented in a decided majority by Liberty). As long as the primary focus is to create a better investment, customer value is likely to suffer.


It certainly is interesting that a Dish Network sub spends most of their time posting on DirecTV related threads....


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> In the past few months, DIRECTV has become all about profit to their investors (now represented in a decided majority by Liberty). As long as the primary focus is to create a better investment, customer value is likely to suffer.


Totally disagree.

Their introduction and escalation of more new technology innovations and services within this time period, not to mention imminent activation of the D12 satellite and the new HD channels it will spawn, demonstrates their desire and financial commitment to offer a better viewing experience than any competitor - a good thing for consumers.

If they happen to make more money as a result of those technology investments - that makes them smart - not greedy.

Then again....I suspect folks on the Dish or cable side of the world don't see that as a good thing. :eek2:


----------



## ffemtreed

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Totally disagree.
> 
> Their introduction and escalation of more new technology innovations and services within this time period, not to mention imminent activation of the D12 satellite and the new HD channels it will spawn, demonstrates their desire and financial commitment to offer a better viewing experience than any competitor - a good thing for consumers.
> 
> If they happen to make more money as a result of those technology investments - that makes them smart - not greedy.
> 
> Then again....I suspect folks on the Dish or cable side of the world don't see that as a good thing. :eek2:


What have they done good for the consumer since the D10 launch????

The DVR's basic functions are quirky. They keep telling us a new box will be released but they missed every date they set so far.

The one good feature they are going to add they are going to charge for it, and even that this feature is quirky sometimes.

The raised the prices on everything, screwed the people the premier.

They lied to us about more HD channels (HBO, ESPNU and etc).

Ok, so they launched a new satellite and have the capacity to give us 200HD channels, well they have open capacity right now, yet can't come to an agreement with any provider to give us any new HD channels. How is a new satellite going to change any of this? Sure we might see a few tokens, but I am not expecting more and 6 or 7 new national HD channels.

The MSNBC-HD for the Olympics sure has me ticked off!!!! I have never been closer to switching providers than I am right now. I have a feeling once NHL playoff's come i might just bite the bullet and pay the EFT.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

harsh said:


> In the past few months, DIRECTV has become all about profit to their investors (now represented in a decided majority by Liberty). As long as the primary focus is to create a better investment, customer value is likely to suffer.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Totally disagree.
> 
> Their introduction and escalation of more new technology innovations and services within this time period, not to mention imminent activation of the D12 satellite and the new HD channels it will spawn, demonstrates their desire and financial commitment to offer a better viewing experience than any competitor - a good thing for consumers.
> 
> If they happen to make more money as a result of those technology investments - that makes them smart - not greedy.
> 
> Then again....I suspect folks on the Dish or cable side of the world don't see that as a good thing. :eek2:


I agree with both of you. Only time will tell. If D12 goes live and we get tons of PPVHD and a few national HD channels, clearly Harsh is correct. If we get tons of national HD channels, my man hdtvfan0001 is correct. I'm pulling for ya hdtvfan0001&#8230;!

I'd like to make this officially known now. If D12 goes live and we're missing pertinent HD channels. I will go completely ballistic if I hear DIRECTV is currently in "talks" or "negotiations" etc&#8230;

D12 has been in the works for years. That should be more than enough time to sell its bandwidth real estate.

This thread is going to drive me to drink. :goodjob:


----------



## Hutchinshouse

ffemtreed said:


> What have they done good for the consumer since the D10 launch????
> 
> The DVR's basic functions are quirky. They keep telling us a new box will be released but *they missed every date they set so far*.
> 
> The one good feature they are going to add they are going to charge for it, and even that this feature is quirky sometimes.
> 
> The raised the prices on everything, screwed the people the premier.
> 
> They lied to us about more HD channels (HBO, ESPNU and etc).
> 
> Ok, so they launched a new satellite and have the capacity to give us 200HD channels, well they have open capacity right now, yet can't come to an agreement with any provider to give us any new HD channels. How is a new satellite going to change any of this? Sure we might see a few tokens, but I am not expecting more and 6 or 7 new national HD channels.
> 
> The MSNBC-HD for the Olympics sure has me ticked off!!!! I have never been closer to switching providers than I am right now. I have a feeling once NHL playoff's come i might just bite the bullet and pay the EFT.


Go easy on DIRECTV. They did meet their rate increase date. :grin:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ffemtreed said:


> What have they done good for the consumer since the D10 launch????


Apparently you might have missed the additional/new national HD, local LIL HD, and regional HD channels, new interactive services including local weather, new HD DVR units with larger storage, faster powerline devices, support for faster wireless devices, SWM/DECA launch, DoublePlay, and MRV beta...just to name *a few*.

Other than that, it's been pretty boring. 

Hey I don't like paying for anything either...but at least my eyes are open enough to see what's new to judge paying for it.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Their introduction and escalation of more new technology innovations and services within this time period, not to mention imminent activation of the D12 satellite and the new HD channels it will spawn, demonstrates their desire and financial commitment to offer a better viewing experience than any competitor - a good thing for consumers.


These innovations of which you speak have been in the works for years. DIRECTV 12 was put into motion in 2004. DIRECTV announced the HMC concept at CES in 2005. DIRECTV joined the MoCA movement in 2008 and DECA is a "colorable" modification of MoCA that has been available for a while now.

Only DIRECTV 12 seems to have a relative "date certain" while the other two advances seem to be largely dependent on widespread adoption of SWM and HD equipment and have no official release date at this time.

DIRECTV is continuing to progress in technology. In some cases (especially SWM), this technology is long overdue. Arguing that these technology initiatives are something new or evidence of a stepping up of effort in that direction is probably not a valid position.


----------



## ffemtreed

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Apparently you might have missed the additional/new national HD, local LIL HD, and regional HD channels, new interactive services including local weather, new HD DVR units with larger storage, faster powerline devices, support for faster wireless devices, SWM/DECA launch, DoublePlay, and MRV beta...just to name *a few*.
> 
> Other than that, it's been pretty boring.


WOO HOO!!!!! I don't see anything on that list that is breaking the technology barrier for the customers. I wouldn't consider a 300 or 500GB hard drive a technology break through. If they would ever get Media play to work that would be great! Of course the PS3 has been doing this for years now.

I'll give you D11 did give some customers some HD, but most people were completly dissatisfied with the amount of channels D11 gave them. From DTV's lack of information to its customers about which channels D12 is going to provide I am not holding my breathe for anything earth shattering.

DTV wasn't like this 8 or 9 years ago when I switched from Dish. The funny part is, I switched because of Sunday Ticket, and for the past 3 years I didn't even order it because I couldn't afford it because they raise the price every year and held the HD ransom (superfan).


----------



## Hoosier205

harsh said:


> These innovations of which you speak have been in the works for years. DIRECTV 12 was put into motion in 2004. DIRECTV announced the HMC concept at CES in 2005. DIRECTV joined the MoCA movement in 2008 and DECA is a "colorable" modification of MoCA that has been available for a while now.
> 
> Only DIRECTV 12 seems to have a relative "date certain" while the other two advances seem to be largely dependent on widespread adoption of SWM and HD equipment and have no official release date at this time.
> 
> DIRECTV is continuing to progress in technology. In some cases (especially SWM), this technology is long overdue. Arguing that these technology initiatives are something new or evidence of a stepping up of effort in that direction is probably not a valid position.


Once again...this discussion does not pertain to you. You are a Dish subscriber. Move on and stop trolling in DirecTV related threads.


----------



## harsh

ffemtreed said:


> What have they done good for the consumer since the D10 launch????


Many LIL markets have been added keeping DIRECTV as a viable option to the cable competitors and in a small way justifying the removal of OTA tuners.


> They keep telling us a new box will be released but they missed every date they set so far.


While dropping hints to the inquisitive, DIRECTV has not made a big deal about any new boxes is quite a while. Showing their prototypes in partner's booths is hardly an announcement.


> They lied to us about more HD channels (HBO, ESPNU and etc).


They lied about HBO and CineMAX, but they haven't yet failed to deliver ESPNU HD on their Q1 2010 promise.


> The MSNBC-HD for the Olympics sure has me ticked off!!!! I have a feeling once NHL playoff's come i might just bite the bullet and pay the EFT.


No argument on these two issues.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> These innovations of which you speak have been in the works for years.


In the works and delivered are two different things. Some Dish folks can't tell the difference.


ffemtreed said:


> WOO HOO!!!!! I don't see anything on that list that is breaking the technology barrier for the customers.


No one (other than you) said that.

We're talking about more new things during the time period of a price increase.

Let's not spin what was said for alternative agendas.

Higher prices are something no one likes to see - on the other hand, I am not aware of anyone who visits homes and twists arms to retain a particular provider either.


----------



## harsh

Hoosier205 said:


> Move on and stop trolling in DirecTV related threads.


You should earn a hat that has the word "MODERATOR" emblazoned on it before issuing demands like this.

If you don't like what I have to say, please address why in a thoughtful and respectful manner.


----------



## ffemtreed

harsh said:


> DIRECTV has not made a big deal about any new boxes is quite a while.


I am talking about the new TIVO box they keep claiming is coming and the home media server idea that they apparently canned.


----------



## braven

Would love to know why "harsh" has a hard on for DIRECTV?

I would imagine E* has it's own problems. Not that I would know, I am a DIRECTV subscriber and don't waste my time causing trouble in the E* forums.


----------



## Hoosier205

harsh said:


> You should earn a hat that has the word "MODERATOR" emblazoned on it before issuing demands like this.
> 
> If you don't like what I have to say, please address why in a thoughtful and respectful manner.


Well, that is rather simple. You routinely post in DirecTV threads for no other reason than to stir the pot. You are not a DirecTV subscriber. These topics do not pertain to you. You are nothing but a mere troll...that much is painfully obvious.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In the works and delivered are two different things.


Just as "delivered" often means different things in DIRECTV parlance. Delivered where I come from means available to and officially supported for any who desire it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ffemtreed said:


> I am talking about the new TIVO box they *keep claiming *is coming and the home media server idea that they apparently canned.


Misinformation.

The Home Media Center is alive and well, and was (in fact) seen and photographed in operation just last month - very much in the works. Feel free to visit the CES report thread here at DBSTalk for more current information.

As for the new Tivobox - it was publicly stated on more than one occasion that a 2010 delivery is still there. It was also reconfirmed last month by Tivo staff at CES. That said, it also depends on Tivo doing their part, as well as DirecTV.


----------



## harsh

ffemtreed said:


> I am talking about the new TIVO box they keep claiming is coming and the home media server idea that they apparently canned.


I misunderstood/misinterpreted.

The TiVo software is substantially a TiVo product and is largely out of DIRECTV's hands until TiVo delivers on their part. I don't think it is reasonable to assert that DIRECTV is interfering with TiVo's progress on this matter.


----------



## ffemtreed

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In the works and delivered are two different things. Some Dish folks can't tell the difference.
> 
> No one (other than you) said that.
> 
> We're talking about more new things during the time period of a price increase.
> 
> Let's not spin what was said for alternative agendas.
> 
> Higher prices are something no one likes to see - on the other hand, I am not aware of anyone who visits homes and twists arms to retain a particular provider either.


As long as they are bettering the service, I don't mind price increases. Its when I am not getting what I paid for and they start taking stuff away and increase the price is what really upsets me. I HATE being lied to.

Again all those things you said don't really benefit most of the consumers, lets take SWM for example. Is my TV/channels any different whether I have a SWM or old type switch? the answer is NO, sure it might make the installers job easier but it doesn't change the picture quality or amount of channels available. What it does is save D from having to run two cables on an install. Its not a feature to enhance customer service, its a cost savings measure for them.


----------



## ffemtreed

harsh said:


> I misunderstood/misinterpreted.
> 
> The TiVo software is substantially a TiVo product and is largely out of DIRECTV's hands until TiVo delivers on their part. I don't think it is reasonable to assert that DIRECTV is interfering with TiVo's progress on this matter.


It might be TIVO's fault, but the bottom line is its DTV's responsibility to make sure it stays on track. Don't keep giving me dates telling me its going to be available and then NOTHING.


----------



## harsh

braven said:


> Would love to know why "harsh" has a hard on for DIRECTV?


I don't feel that I'm being hard on DIRECTV at all. I'm addressing what I believe to be invalid assertions and it goes both ways. I don't think it matters where I or anyone else calls home as long as the arguments are valid and the truth prevails.


----------



## harsh

ffemtreed said:


> It might be TIVO's fault, but the bottom line is its DTV's responsibility to make sure it stays on track. Don't keep giving me dates telling me its going to be available and then NOTHING.


DIRECTV's responsibilities do not include project management for TiVo. The redacted contract is pretty clear on who is responsible for what and when. For their part, DIRECTV has been relatively (and appropriately) silent on TiVo delivery dates.


----------



## Hoosier205

harsh said:


> I don't feel that I'm being hard on DIRECTV at all. I'm addressing what I believe to be invalid assertions and it goes both ways. I don't think it matters where I or anyone else calls home as long as the arguments are valid and the truth prevails.


Your posting history proves otherwise.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ffemtreed said:


> Again all those things you said don't really benefit most of the consumers, lets take SWM for example. *Is my TV/channels any different whether I have a SWM or old type switch? *


In several ways....yes.

1) SWM allows for the ability to use multiple tuners via a single coax line connection...and since most folks don't have 2 coax lines run throughout their homes....it allows mobility to place an HD DVR virtually anywhere a single coax is available. I have 3 HD DVRs on 3 different home levels - that simply could not be done without SWM (or running alot of new dual coax).

2) Based on point #1, it means you have more choices *where* and *how* to view HDTV in your home.

3) SWM is the gateway to both *current* and *future* access of products and services - providing you the established means to access the latest things.

4) It is as reliable, if not more so, than any switching technology to date, assuring peace of mind. Since its field testing in mid-2007, SWM has worked out so well for DirecTV, that they now use it as their baseline new install method where multiple HD devices are requested by the customer.

SWM has indeed been a huge benefit to DirecTV customers, and will continue to be one for years to come.

I suspect that the new D12 satellite and what it will bring, as well as MRV and other services coming up....will benefit many customers.


----------



## Jeremy W

braven said:


> Would love to know why "harsh" has a hard on for DIRECTV?





harsh said:


> I don't feel that I'm being hard on DIRECTV at all.


Read the original post a little closer... :lol:


----------



## Boston Fan

Jeremy W said:


> Read the original post a little closer... :lol:


I believe you've been zoomed.


----------



## dubber deux

Lodi25 said:


> *All I can say is, DirecTV is nuts for raising the prices during a recession!! What the hell has DirecTV been smoking?? *


Arrogance and greed has no limits.

:kickbutt:

Singing "Kick em (the customer) when they up, kick em when they down, kick em while they sit, kick em all around. Dirty little people, dirty little lies, they got their dirtly little fingers in every little pie"......:hair:


----------



## DawgLink

I usually don't have a problem with DirecTV raising rates as they have done a decent job adding channels the last few years.

But I am a bit surprised they raised it as much as they did...no, they didn't raise it THAT much but still a little more than I thought they would


----------



## SParker

dubber deux said:


> Arrogance and greed has no limits.
> 
> :kickbutt:
> 
> Singing "Kick em (the customer) when they up, kick em when they down, kick em while they sit, kick em all around. Dirty little people, dirty little lies, they got their fingers in every little pie"......:hair:


Thanks Don Henley


----------



## D-Bamatech

Jeremy W said:


> Read the original post a little closer... :lol:


MAYBE.. just mayBE... he knows more truth than the nominal "tv watcher" in this farce of a forum. (and/or HAs simple LOGIC unlike you flag waivers who have blinders on.)

Ask me who i laugh At here in this PRO and biased forum and it isnt the "harshes"... Its the BLIND / FOOLISH *AND the ones WITH MOTIVE to depict one thing when its 180 degrees of opposite. (yeah i know why and for Whom and most of your handles --- you guys are better than anything on the comedy channel for laughter most of the time)

Ive been in this so-called industry / mess since inception and these days
( with PRIDE in saying) i wont recommend a D* nothin' to anyone with my face or name on it and i dont care what commissions they pay per sale.
WHY?
D*'s biz ethics and crimes are the worst in this country! hands down.

Soo run along now...Puppies on THEIR leash
go PAY for MRV, HD extra, and waive your blind flags some more in hideous fashion. Pay 'em some more for something you dont even own.. :nono:
OR i know let THEIR leased junk Equip fail religiously so they can keep you on "their ticket" of undue contracts extensions and ETF's....AND..While rate increases accumulate. (now who is THEIR Idiot while you listen to audio drop outs?.. hey,... But can you hear ME, or is it you dont want tooo? :lol

SO "harsh"... No hardly .. try reality for a change!


----------



## Jeremy W

D-Bamatech said:


> Ask me who i laugh At here


I would, but I was too busy laughing at your post. Also, I don't care.


----------



## dubber deux

D-Bamatech said:


> MAYBE.. just mayBE... he knows more truth than the nominal "tv watcher" in this farce of a forum. (and/or HAs simple LOGIC unlike you flag waivers who have blinders on.)
> 
> Ive been in this so-called industry / mess since inception and these days
> ( with PRIDE in saying) i wont recommend a D* nothin' to anyone with my face or name on it and i dont care what commissions they pay per sale.
> WHY?
> D*'s biz ethics and crimes are the worst in this country! hands down.
> 
> SO "harsh"... No hardly .. try reality for a change!


You must have put on the special sun glasses from the movie "They Live". :icon_cool

Reality is a very hard pill for some to swallow..these folks prefer the "red pill" :bowdown:


----------



## ndole

Some folks should just lay off the pills.
:scratchin


----------



## ATARI

ndole_mbnd said:


> Some folks should just lay off the pills.
> :scratchin


LOL!! :lol::lol:


----------



## Tubaman-Z

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...
> 3) SWM is the gateway to both *current* and *future* access of products and services - providing you the established means to access the latest things.
> ...


So....I have been a D* customer since 1995. I currently have 3 DVRs but no SWM. If I order another DVR will they install SWM so that I can step into the future? The implication of your point 3 is that without SWM I'll be left behind at some point.


----------



## hancox

Shades228 said:


> Actually it was $1 less.


Isn't that annoying? I wouldn't mind going to a new package, if it didn't increase my already-jacked rate further!!!


----------



## joed32

Tubaman-Z said:


> So....I have been a D* customer since 1995. I currently have 3 DVRs but no SWM. If I order another DVR will they install SWM so that I can step into the future? The implication of your point 3 is that without SWM I'll be left behind at some point.


I have 5 DCRs and got a new dish installed last week and no SWM. Yes we will need it in the future.


----------



## codespy

Bump-

Latest statement shows the $5.00 increase in Premier to $114.99.

Still shows $0.00 for DVR service on my grandfathered account (not lifetime). 

It's something at least.


----------



## spartanstew

My last bill, which was on 2/9, had Choice XTRA at $60.99. When I go to the Current Set-up page of my account, it still shows that I have Choice XTRA at $60.99.

Shouldn't the rate increase have already happened?


----------



## Paul Secic

codespy said:


> Bump-
> 
> Latest statement shows the $5.00 increase in Premier to $114.99.
> 
> Still shows $0.00 for DVR service on my grandfathered account (not lifetime).
> 
> It's something at least.


Whew that's high!


----------



## cody21

Paul Secic said:


> Whew that's high!


I agree .... Mine just went to $114.99 for Premier per their announcement back in December. I am SERIOUSLY near the breaking point of just going to a basic package and subscribing to unlimited NETFLIX for $9.99/mo. Granted I won't get the latest/current HBO & SHO series that come out and will therefore have to wait a year to catch up. But ..... just wondering to myself if this is really worth it anymore.

oh, and I've been with D* since 1995 ... and like cable, just watched their price go up and up while limitations just get imposed.


----------



## D-Bamatech

dubber deux said:


> You must have put on the special sun glasses from the movie "They Live". :icon_cool
> 
> Reality is a very hard pill for some to swallow..these folks prefer the "red pill" :bowdown:


Yeah i know (reality hard to swallow/red pill)

Heck i just read a thread here (its locked now) with "the propaganda channel" in Full swing and wide open AGAIN.

It was started By D* personel and then 3 posts later here comes another D* PAID employee.. (lmao & right on time... or i mean in PLAN)

It was a VERY, VERY SEE THROUGH AND ILL attempt,
to glorify the new sat with the capacity devotion to alot of PPV in comparison to other forms of the same movies and offerings.

Hideous! :lol: &
How funny and yet again better than anything on the comedy channel.


----------



## Hoosier205

D-Bamatech said:


> Yeah i know (reality hard to swallow/red pill)
> 
> Heck i just read a thread here (its locked now) with "the propaganda channel" in Full swing and wide open AGAIN.
> 
> It was started By D* personel and then 3 posts later here comes another D* PAID employee.. (lmao & right on time... or i mean in PLAN)
> 
> It was a VERY, VERY SEE THROUGH AND ILL attempt,
> to glorify the new sat with the capacity devotion to alot of PPV in comparison to other forms of the same movies and offerings.
> 
> Hideous! :lol: &
> How funny and yet again better than anything on the comedy channel.


Who do you think is the second DirecTV employee posting here?


----------



## anleva

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In several ways....yes.
> 
> 1) SWM allows for the ability to use multiple tuners via a single coax line connection...and since most folks don't have 2 coax lines run throughout their homes....it allows mobility to place an HD DVR virtually anywhere a single coax is available. I have 3 HD DVRs on 3 different home levels - that simply could not be done without SWM (or running alot of new dual coax).
> 
> 2) Based on point #1, it means you have more choices *where* and *how* to view HDTV in your home.
> 
> 3) SWM is the gateway to both *current* and *future* access of products and services - providing you the established means to access the latest things.
> 
> 4) It is as reliable, if not more so, than any switching technology to date, assuring peace of mind. Since its field testing in mid-2007, SWM has worked out so well for DirecTV, that they now use it as their baseline new install method where multiple HD devices are requested by the customer.
> 
> SWM has indeed been a huge benefit to DirecTV customers, and will continue to be one for years to come.
> 
> I suspect that the new D12 satellite and what it will bring, as well as MRV and other services coming up....will benefit many customers.


Maybe there is a better thread for this, but your comments on SWM raised a question for me.

My house is home run wired and I have two RG6 cables at every outlet (and 2 Cat 5e). So wiring isn't an issue. But is there any advantage for me to use SWM instead? I think it would have to be something I would need to do myself, but that wouldn't be that big of a deal. But is there any advantage to me to do so?

Thanks


----------



## Jeremy W

Hoosier205 said:


> Who do you think is the second DirecTV employee posting here?


He's referring to the thread about Netflix started by Satelliteracer with Earl joining in. As much as I hate to say it, that does look *extremely* bad. I had the same thought when I read the thread.


----------



## Jeremy W

anleva said:


> My house is home run wired and I have two RG6 cables at every outlet (and 2 Cat 5e). So wiring isn't an issue. But is there any advantage for me to use SWM instead? I think it would have to be something I would need to do myself, but that wouldn't be that big of a deal. But is there any advantage to me to do so?


As of right now, there is no advantage whatsoever. If DirecTV decides to require DECA/SWM for MRV, then there will be an obvious advantage if you wish to use MRV.


----------



## anleva

Jeremy W said:


> As of right now, there is no advantage whatsoever. If DirecTV decides to require DECA/SWM for MRV, then there will be an obvious advantage if you wish to use MRV.


Thanks. Can you explain the DECA topology? I hear the term alot but I'm not sure what it is versus networking my DVRs via a hardwired LAN like I do today.


----------



## Hoosier205

Jeremy W said:


> He's referring to the thread about Netflix started by Satelliteracer with Earl joining in. As much as I hate to say it, that does look *extremely* bad. I had the same thought when I read the thread.


I completely forgot about Earl.


----------



## RAD

anleva said:


> Thanks. Can you explain the DECA topology? I hear the term alot but I'm not sure what it is versus networking my DVRs via a hardwired LAN like I do today.


Review the 1st look at http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170910 and see if that answers your questions.


----------



## anleva

RAD said:


> Review the 1st look at http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170910 and see if that answers your questions.


It does, thanks


----------



## D-Bamatech

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Jeremy W
> He's referring to the thread about Netflix started by Satelliteracer with Earl joining in. As much as I hate to say it, that does look extremely bad. I had the same thought when I read the thread.
> 
> _I completely forgot about Earl_./QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> only 2? OR as was said "other"?
> :lol:
> 
> Pay attention:
> You will see everything from the designed baits from El-segundo themselves,
> The Csr's (each dept pretty much)
> And the HSP "installers".
> All Spit off what is Written and TOLD.
> Heck you can evn spot the retailer/dealer swoop in to Try to nab his commission Based "sail" from time to time.
> (boy i'd love to see the proclaimed as "help" in PM"s thats for sure...:lol
> 
> Theres a BIG difference between,
> Well...
> "_Where Truth IS.
> and where D* lies_.
> 
> Just be aware of where you are, and be careful what string you pull toward or on in replies here. Some are laid down with purpose and may just be traps to depict what "they" want. Ya reckin '
> 
> Also,
> Ever wonder if anyone 'round here wants to follow on the coat tails of EB?
> CAN you Spot 'em for me.. :eek2:
> ---------
> 
> "eyes wide shut"
Click to expand...


----------



## sigma1914

For someone so unhappy with people here & their help, why are you here & why don't you help? Instead, you spout off in often incoherent and poorly typed babble without adding any help.


----------



## Jeremy W

D-Bamatech said:


> only 2? OR as was said "other"?


You should be pretty careful when identifying people as DirecTV employees/installers. Perhaps it's just because I am on this site a lot, but it's pretty clear who works for DirecTV or is an installer.

I've been accused of being a DirecTV employee more than once, although I can assure you that I have never worked for DirecTV or any company related to DirecTV in any way. Some people, including me from time to time, simply have positive things to say about the company that they write a check to on a monthly basis.


----------



## D-Bamatech

Jeremy W said:


> You should be pretty careful when identifying people as DirecTV employees/installers. Perhaps it's just because I am on this site a lot, but it's pretty clear who works for DirecTV or is an installer.
> 
> I've been accused of being a DirecTV employee more than once, although I can assure you that I have never worked for DirecTV or any company related to DirecTV in any way. Some people, including me from time to time, simply have positive things to say about the company that they write a check to on a monthly basis.


Your Not being Said as such by me FYI. 
(maybe its your own complex that resulted in your seeming defense OR as you said PAST implications from others)

I think i called you a "flag waiver" .
IE: Not (as others) A monetary result or job description which results in commissions.
BTW "refer a friend" dont count..:lol:

AND "help"?
You want real defined help or some that pays me? :lol:


----------



## Jeremy W

D-Bamatech said:


> Your Not being Said as such by me FYI.


I didn't think that you were accusing me. But you were accusing others, so I just wanted to point out that false accusations of DirecTV employment are a fairly common thing on this site.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

D-Bamatech said:


> Yeah i know (reality hard to swallow/red pill)
> 
> Heck i just read a thread here (its locked now) with "the propaganda channel" in Full swing and wide open AGAIN.
> 
> It was started By D* personel and then 3 posts later here comes another D* PAID employee.. (lmao & right on time... or i mean in PLAN)
> 
> It was a VERY, VERY SEE THROUGH AND ILL attempt,
> to glorify the new sat with the capacity devotion to alot of PPV in comparison to other forms of the same movies and offerings.
> 
> Hideous! :lol: &
> How funny and yet again better than anything on the comedy channel.


You mean my post here?
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2371526&postcount=4

My post has what in fact to do with DIRECTV?

Can you inform me, of what in my post, was factually incorrect?
Or where in my post, I am pimping DIRECTV's PPV service? Or where I am talking about anything D12 or elaborating on Mr. White's statements about future plans for PPV.... please do so.

But please, don't try to infer something that isn't there.
And don't beat around the bush... it isn't hard to post a link to the original thread/post, so other readers can get the raw facts of the situation.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

D-Bamatech said:


> Also,
> Ever wonder if anyone 'round here wants to follow on the coat tails of EB?
> CAN you Spot 'em for me.. :eek2:
> ---------
> 
> "eyes wide shut"


Other then you having a fairly rooted issue with me, from when I was a moderator of the site.... what is wrong with my coat tails?


----------



## D-Bamatech

Jeremy W said:


> I didn't think that you were accusing me. But you were accusing others, so I just wanted to point out that false accusations of DirecTV employment are a fairly common thing on this site.


Understood.
& i'll say this, 
with your comment earlier about "that thread", well i wont or *cant say you"re totally blind either 

As far as , "them" and who they are... Heck i can name them w/o seeing a thing in their signatures ect.
EASY Spot !

Measured and delivered tactical propaganda? ANd from WHom?
IF youve been around in this game as long as i and have seen what ive seen, then YES.. heck its Verbatim to dictation and sometimes like their plagerizing exaxtly from a sheet with that pretty blue logo on the top of it.

I bet i can post some things (A LOT of things) here and get censored 
(should i say.... AGAIN) or even get to see a thread go "Poof!" completely.
(TRUTH in shock and awe form doesnt measure well here.  and again i wonder why? hmmm and as with a sound of bell that goes "ding ding" and attention is gotten :lol: )

Btw, Being a Flag waiver because you like TV, doesnt get you Blasphemed from me. So Dont be confused JW.
One thing IS for sure what you waive a flag for now days is not what WAS in the slightest in no shape or form as a provider.
I usually just read here anyway. (no type, just laughter)
Just when i see BS.. hard to keep my mouth shut and i end up just being a self admitted smart A @ times... OR... maybe its just to add "a little tune to a old song "that may bring awareness ever now and then.

And for those of less understanding?
Is it parables to decipher... OR babble? :lol:

See you guys later.
And as always
BEWARE 
or Just BE AWARE?


----------



## joshjr

Jeremy W said:


> As of right now, there is no advantage whatsoever. If DirecTV decides to require DECA/SWM for MRV, then there will be an obvious advantage if you wish to use MRV.


Well one advantage would be if you wanted to run OTA to your recievers. If you used a SWM8 switch then the 2nd line you already have ran could be a OTA line to each reciever. Thats one advantage I guess.


----------



## D-Bamatech

Earl Bonovich said:


> Other then you having a fairly rooted issue with me, from when I was a moderator of the site.... what is wrong with my coat tails?


hi earl! LOL!

Coat tails?.. Nothin' if theres no driven goal that seems to throw out ethics!

Btw DID someone send you back here tonight?... 
Ya heard maybe?

And rooted issue?
What was that, that i printed TRUTH beyond the deception? Maybe?
(btw you arent/werent the only one, it happened since and was nothing but TRUTH yet again but Silenced. (now go talk amongst yourselves)

Btw, that as it was.. tell "them" Its time.. change is coming or is it to be called ENFORCEMENT.

Now ya might know why im back if you think.
Im fixing to get the best last laugh ever... he he.

Hint:
Tell "them" to go to work on one portion of that BIZ model, i hear there WILL BE NO CHOICE. 

EDIT:
Btw ole EB werent we first introduced in a TIVO forum?
Wheres the Tivo and a Real DVR not a "never ending patch work process."
Hey and if you worked on the MRV, Good job... U-verse Made "somebody" finally move i guess...


----------



## Earl Bonovich

D-Bamatech said:


> hi earl! LOL!
> 
> Coat tails?.. Nothin' if theres no driven goal that seems to throw out ethics!
> 
> Btw DID someone send you back here tonight?...
> Ya heard maybe?
> 
> And rooted issue?
> What was that, that i printed TRUTH beyond the deception? Maybe?
> (btw you arent/werent the only one, it happened since and was nothing but TRUTH yet again but Silenced. (now go talk amongst yourselves)
> 
> Btw, that as it was.. tell "them" Its time.. change is coming or is it to be called ENFORCEMENT.
> 
> Now ya might know why im back if you think.
> Im fixing to get the best last laugh ever... he he.
> 
> Hint:
> Tell "them" to go to work on one portion of that BIZ model, i hear there WILL BE NO CHOICE.


Ahh... so we are on the same page/chapter as we left off at many years ago. Good to know.

And no, no one "sent" me here tonight.
I am here basically every night, as DBSTalk is a very special place for me and I enjoy the conversations and banter that goes on. And I am glad that I can now participate in some of the conversations that go on.

This conversation however, is most certainly heading in a direction, that I can't participate it... as it isn't my responsibility or job in the company for the topics that you passionately would like to expand on upon.

I posted specifically to clarify what you posted above, is nothing more then your conjecture on my opinion as it related to Satelliteracer's post.
I have absolutely nothing to hide, same as before when I was more active in the forum.


----------



## D-Bamatech

Earl Bonovich said:


> Ahh... so we are on the same page/chapter as we left off at many years ago. Good to know.
> 
> And no, no one "sent" me here tonight.
> I am here basically every night, as DBSTalk is a very special place for me and I enjoy the conversations and banter that goes on. And I am glad that I can now participate in some of the conversations that go on.
> 
> This conversation however, is most certainly heading in a direction, that I can't participate it... as it isn't my responsibility or job in the company for the topics that you passionately would like to expand on upon.
> 
> I posted specifically to clarify what you posted above, is nothing more then your conjecture on my opinion as it related to Satelliteracer's post.
> I have absolutely nothing to hide, same as before when I was more active in the forum.


Hey guess what THIS time I cant elaborate much either (reason for vagueness).

As far as this and your assumptions. _(Ahh... so we are on the same page/chapter as we left off at many years ago. Good to know. _)
NOPE, and not exactly as you think. Those people and Your employers dont like that and paid to stop alot of it.. Hey but the first place to feel what was started was guess where? It was a success in A-LA... hmm wonder how that happened?.  
Then the Buy outs and Busting.
You may can do a "decipher" though If you run an internet search, but the key word would have to be almost exact).
Look toward DC itself maybe.
Somebody has drooped a real DIME, this time and it completely abolishes the "usual designed skirt of El-segundo". (IE: no way out or to claim their hands arent Dirty)

SEE ya,
We''ll let this die between us in particular due to your job and as you said about direction. Ive said too much or maybe Just enough.


----------



## Hoosier205

D-Bamatech said:


> Hey guess what THIS time I cant elaborate much either (reason for vagueness).
> 
> As far as this and your assumptions. _(Ahh... so we are on the same page/chapter as we left off at many years ago. Good to know. _)
> NOPE, and not exactly as you think. Those people and Your employers dont like that and paid to stop alot of it.. Hey but the first place to feel what was started was guess where? It was a success in A-LA... hmm wonder how that happened?.
> Then the Buy outs and Busting.
> You may can do a "decipher" though If you run an internet search, but the key word would have to be almost exact).
> Look toward DC itself maybe.
> Somebody has drooped a real DIME, this time and it completely abolishes the "usual designed skirt of El-segundo". (IE: no way out or to claim their hands arent Dirty)
> 
> SEE ya,
> We''ll let this die between us in particular due to your job and as you said about direction. Ive said too much or maybe Just enough.


I mean no disrespect, but your posts are incredibly hard to read and understand. I am sure there is a very good reason for that. Perhaps you have some sort of personal struggle in your life or maybe English is not your first language. I don't know. Like I said, I am sure there is a good reason for it and I mean no disrespect.

If there is not a particular reason for it however...would you mind for the sake of everyone here, friend and foe alike, making yours posts easier to read and understand?


----------



## mdavej

Hoosier205 said:


> I mean no disrespect, but your posts are incredibly hard to read and understand. I am sure there is a very good reason for that. Perhaps you have some sort of personal struggle in your life or maybe English is not your first language. I don't know. Like I said, I am sure there is a good reason for it and I mean no disrespect.
> 
> If there is not a particular reason for it however...would you mind for the sake of everyone here, friend and foe alike, making yours posts easier to read and understand?


Don't you see? Obviously he's saying the city of gold is BEHIND Mount Rushmore. Oh no, I've already said too much ...


----------



## JeffBowser

He writes like a ******* HS drop-out, but don't discount what he hints at. I, too, have privately suggested to him that if he can write like a normal human being, he'd be better able to make his points understood, but he has no interest in that.

Nonetheless, he's not completely full of it.



Hoosier205 said:


> I mean no disrespect, but your posts are incredibly hard to read and understand. I am sure there is a very good reason for that. Perhaps you have some sort of personal struggle in your life or maybe English is not your first language. I don't know. Like I said, I am sure there is a good reason for it and I mean no disrespect.
> 
> If there is not a particular reason for it however...would you mind for the sake of everyone here, friend and foe alike, making yours posts easier to read and understand?


----------



## mdavej

JeffBowser said:


> ...don't discount what he hints at...


Do tell.


----------



## Hoosier205

Let's just say that in my private life I deal with numerous folks who have some of the most paranoid, off-the-wall, conspiracy theory type beliefs that you cannot believe until you have heard them. I mean...wow, you wouldn't even believe these conversations. 

His posts remind me of those conversations. The type of person who gives you an hour-long monologue and your one and only response to it is, "...what?"


----------



## JeffBowser

I'm not an insider, nor is it my place to pass on 3rd hand what I have researched that may or may not be entirely accurate. That's why I wish our friend from Alabama would be more articulate.

That being said, I don't share his negative outlook towards DirecTV employed posters on this board, just his points on their business practices.



mdavej said:


> Do tell.


----------



## Hoosier205

Never mind. The guy is nothing more than a disgruntled former installer. Surprise, surprise...someone with a grudge.


----------



## JeffBowser

Oh, no doubt he carries a grudge. Doesn't negate what goes on in some of DirecTV's business practices.

My interest is as a business owner. How do they get away with some of that crap that would land me in bankruptcy court from all the lawsuits.



Hoosier205 said:


> Never mind. The guy is nothing more than a disgruntled former installer. Surprise, surprise...someone with a grudge.


----------



## JLucPicard

Wow - this thread has hit about twenty-some pages and has gotten so far off topic I wonder if it's time it's closed?

Clicking in to find discussion about rates/packages and such has become *futile*.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I was thinking the same thing. I had planned to give a month after the rate change before closing, but this seems like a good time...


----------

