# So Tired Of The Price Game!



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Is anyone else sick of the price game with these guys? I'm about ready to do what this article says. I got on this forum just to vent about it. Price is constantly changing, I have extra charges for stuff I didn't want, and no work with me on getting HBO.

Check out this article, has anyone else ever done this? Not sure how I'd like no ESPN, but it sure beats the frustration and money I'm wasting! I think I'm about to do it.

http://voices.yahoo.com/how-saved-thousands-part-2-cable-sattelite-bill-11989305.html?cat=3


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171031 said:


> Is anyone else sick of the price game with these guys? I'm about ready to do what this article says. I got on this forum just to vent about it. Price is constantly changing, I have extra charges for stuff I didn't want, and no work with me on getting The Red Zone channel this football season without buying the entire package.
> 
> Check out this article, has anyone else ever done this? Not sure how I'd like no ESPN, but it sure beats the frustration and money I'm wasting!
> 
> http://voices.yahoo.com/how-saved-thousands-part-2-cable-sattelite-bill-11989305.html?cat=3


Game? What game? The prices for content go up each year. So, of course the rates charged by service providers goes up as well.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Not only do you not get ESPN, you don't get any live sports, only delayed ones at best.

And then you have to futz around with whatever you are using to switch between the various sources for the shows you want. I've fiddled with that in the past and to me it just wasn't worth the hassle. Still isn't.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> Is anyone else sick of the price game with these guys? I'm about ready to do what this article says. I got on this forum just to vent about it. Price is constantly changing, I have extra charges for stuff I didn't want, and no work with me on getting HBO.
> 
> Check out this article, has anyone else ever done this? Not sure how I'd like no ESPN, but it sure beats the frustration and money I'm wasting! I think I'm about to do it.
> 
> http://voices.yahoo.com/how-saved-thousands-part-2-cable-sattelite-bill-11989305.html?cat=3


Prices don't "constantly" change. They change once a year in line with when all the prices the distributor (Directv, Dish, Comcast, etc) has to pay new rates to the channels.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> Game? What game? The prices for content go up each year. So, of course the rates charged by service providers goes up as well.


It's just ridiculous. Why can't I only pay for and get some of the channels I want? I only watch a handful of channels, but I'm paying for dozens of others I could care less about watching. Plus, why does the price have to constantly go up? It's even month to month.



lparsons21 said:


> Not only do you not get ESPN, you don't get any live sports, only delayed ones at best.
> 
> And then you have to futz around with whatever you are using to switch between the various sources for the shows you want. I've fiddled with that in the past and to me it just wasn't worth the hassle. Still isn't.


Did you read the article? You get live sports on the over the air channels it talks about.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> Did you read the article? You get live sports on the over the air channels it talks about.


Which means almost no golf, no boxing for the most part. Just some football, basketball and baseball.

While you're switching boxes or futzing with some 'media center' software, I'll be watching what I want to watch easily and simply. I'll also be watching them with no ads without much effort.

All that comes at a price and so far I think it is worth it. If you disagree, I have no problem with that, have at it!


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Satelliteracer said:


> Prices don't "constantly" change. They change once a year in line with when all the prices the distributor (Directv, Dish, Comcast, etc) has to pay new rates to the channels.


I have to call once every couple of months for some new charge for something. And why is it that the fees seem to always change? Is that a government tax thing or what? Does it vary by state?


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I'm not too happy about my satellite bill either but the convenience I would miss. Every time I look at hooking up the TV antenna and working out a DVR sytems, it ends up being too much of a hassle to even think about going that direction. Not to mention I would miss taking my satellite subscription on the road in the RV. 

An alternative would be to simply cut your subscription down to the bare minimum of what you feel you really need. That has worked for me in the past when finances get tight.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

lparsons21 said:


> Which means almost no golf, no boxing for the most part. Just some football, basketball and baseball.
> 
> While you're switching boxes or futzing with some 'media center' software, I'll be watching what I want to watch easily and simply. I'll also be watching them with no ads without much effort.
> 
> All that comes at a price and so far I think it is worth it. If you disagree, I have no problem with that, have at it!


Gold makes me bored just thinking about it, and boxing died when Mike Tyson went crazy.

How do you watch anything without ads?

Not disagreeing, just thinking of going the free route because DTV just seems like such a hassle anymore. I used to love it.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Chris Blount said:


> I'm not too happy about my satellite bill either but the convenience I would miss. Every time I look at hooking up the TV antenna and working out a DVR sytems, it ends up being too much of a hassle to even think about going that direction. Not to mention I would miss taking my satellite subscription on the road in the RV.
> 
> An alternative would be to simply cut your subscription down to the bare minimum of what you feel you really need. That has worked for me in the past when finances get tight.


Thank you Mr Blount. I've called about that, but the smaller packages don't give me the couple of channels I watch?

I have a serious question: Why can't we just pay for the channels we watch? I would gladly pay $20 a month for 6 channels I really love. I could get the local channels with an antenna. Are we far away from such a thing?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171050 said:


> Why can't I only pay for and get some of the channels I want? I only watch a handful of channels, but I'm paying for dozens of others I could care less about watching.


If people did that, very few of the channels you like would actually survive. The ones that did would be much more expensive and the production value of their content would plummet.



CallMeCoach;3171050 said:


> Plus, why does the price have to constantly go up? It's even month to month.


It is not month to month. Rate increases happen but once a year.


----------



## macfan601 (May 4, 2012)

CallMeCoach said:


> Is anyone else sick of the price game with these guys? I'm about ready to do what this article says. I got on this forum just to vent about it. Price is constantly changing, I have extra charges for stuff I didn't want, and no work with me on getting HBO.
> 
> Check out this article, has anyone else ever done this? Not sure how I'd like no ESPN, but it sure beats the frustration and money I'm wasting! I think I'm about to do it.
> 
> http://voices.yahoo.com/how-saved-thousands-part-2-cable-sattelite-bill-11989305.html?cat=3


No one likes the price increases today. Everyone has to decide what is a priority to them and what they use most. I can almost totally go without a cell phone except for emergencies so I have a Tracfone. Costs me $99 a year for a new phone, 1,400 minutes, a case, and a car charger and I always have minutes left over. On the other hand, I had a heart attack and have cancer. By the time evening rolls around I am exhausted, fall into my home theater recliner, and stay there until I go to bed. My Directv is my enjoyment then. Truthfully, I would pay almost any price for it. I drive a 15 year old car. I just go to the store and to the doctor's office so I don't need any more than that. But a priority to my neighbor is to have a new car every couple of years. One size doesn't fit all. Everyone has to make decisions that are right for them.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> I have to call once every couple of months for some new charge for something. And why is it that the fees seem to always change? Is that a government tax thing or what? Does it vary by state?


Perhaps you could provide some examples. Fees don't just change. If they do, customers are notified in writing. Typically fees change (if they even do) along with pricing at the beginning of the year. Yes, some states charge taxes for satellite and some do not....unfortunate that any of them do since satellite isn't digging up the streets to lay cable or anything that hampers the infrastructure, but politicians need revenue so they go after many industries now to attempt to close their budget gaps.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

CallMeCoach said:


> I have a serious question: Why can't we just pay for the channels we watch? I would gladly pay $20 a month for 6 channels I really love. I could get the local channels with an antenna. Are we far away from such a thing?





Hoosier205 said:


> If people did that, very few of the channels you like would actually survive. The ones that did would be much more expensive and the production value of their content would plummet.


and what exactly is wrong with that? We could really do without 10 channels showing reruns of Law & Order, NCIS, or Roseanne or programming like Hardcore Pawn and Lizard Lick Towing.
People should be given the right to choose the stations they want. However, that's another debate which has been beaten to death... :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Satelliteracer said:


> Perhaps you could provide some examples. Fees don't just change. If they do, customers are notified in writing. Typically fees change (if they even do) along with pricing at the beginning of the year. Yes, some states charge taxes for satellite and some do not....unfortunate that any of them do since satellite isn't digging up the streets to lay cable or anything that hampers the infrastructure, but politicians need revenue so they go after many industries now to attempt to close their budget gaps.


I will try to dig up some bills tonight or tomorrow and show how some fees have changed.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

fluffybear;3171102 said:


> and what exactly is wrong with that?


...again? Here we go. The channels you like might not be among the ones that survive. The ones that do survive would be much more expensive. This would also create a reduction in revenues used for all aspects of production. If this then leads to a substantial loss of subscribers, service providers also would see their ability to innovate and function diminished.

The short answer: It doesn't work. It hasn't worked.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

fluffybear said:


> and what exactly is wrong with that? Would could really do without 10 channels showing reruns of Law & Order, NCIS, or Roseanne or programming like Hardcore Pawn and Lizard Lick Towing.
> People should be given the right to choose the stations they want. However, that's another debate which has been beaten to death... :beatdeadhorse:


Exactly!

I have not been a part of any of those debates, but don't see why that can't be an option today. If ESPn charges said provider $4 for the channel, charge the people $5.50 for it or whatever. Who cares? I'd overpay for the few channels I want rather than get a discount on 80 I won't touch.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...again? Here we go. The channels you like might not be among the ones that survive. The ones that do survive would be much more expensive. This would also create a reduction in revenues used for all aspects of production. If this then leads to a substantial loss of subscribers, service providers also would see their ability to innovate and function diminished.
> 
> The short answer: It doesn't work. It hasn't worked.


But how do we know they won't survive? And if it's quality programming, it will survive. That's capitalism and the free market at its best. If the channel doesn't survive, then obviously not enough people liked it or the content was terrible. Saying it doesn't work is saying it won't work for EVERY channel, but who cares? Someone else will just do it better if there is a market for it. The quality channels will survive, and everyone else will have to have competitive prices and quality content. It's not that hard to comprehend. Some company out there is going to start offering that and pull a whole lot of customers away.

And the article brought up a great point: we are paying money to watch commercials. You shouldn't have to pay money to watch commercials. Pay money for content should = no advertising like Netflix. If you have to watch an advertisement, then the content should be free like OTA channels.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171117 said:


> Exactly!
> 
> I have not been a part of any of those debates, but don't see why that can't be an option today. If ESPn charges said provider $4 for the channel, charge the people $5.50 for it or whatever. Who cares? I'd overpay for the few channels I want rather than get a discount on 80 I won't touch.


Exactly what? Please read the posts from people telling you why it doesn't work that way. Also, good luck finding proof that your rates change from month to month...they don't.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171120 said:


> But how do we know they won't survive? And if it's quality programming, it will survive. That's capitalism and the free market at its best. If the channel doesn't survive, then obviously not enough people liked it or the content was terrible.
> 
> And the article brought up a great point: we are paying money to watch commercials. You shouldn't have to pay money to watch commercials. Pay money for content should = no advertising like Netflix. If you have to watch an advertisement, then the content should be free like OTA channels.


...because it failed before. Commercials serve a purpose in helping to pay for what you are watching.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> Perhaps you could provide some examples. Fees don't just change. If they do, customers are notified in writing. Typically fees change (if they even do) along with pricing at the beginning of the year. Yes, some states charge taxes for satellite and some do not....unfortunate that any of them do since satellite isn't digging up the streets to lay cable or anything that hampers the infrastructure, but politicians need revenue so they go after many industries now to attempt to close their budget gaps.


Heck, if I remember right, California even looked at your satellite fleet (back in the Hughes days) and wondered if they should be getting property tax...


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> Exactly what? Please read the posts from people telling you why it doesn't work that way. Also, good luck finding proof that your rates change from month to month...they don't.


Lol -- I'm going to go find my old bills and show you how it does. That's funny, you telling a stranger good luck on finding something that's happened to them. Seriously?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171124 said:


> Lol -- I'm going to go find my old bills and show you how it does. That's funny, you telling a stranger good luck on finding something that's happened to them. Seriously?


You were also told that by someone else...someone who works for DirecTV. The rates do not change from month to month.


----------



## markrw58 (Apr 5, 2007)

I have had DTV for 16 years and am about to begin my attempt to live without DTV. I decided to give it a try because I just don't know if the service justifies the cost anymore so I will be suspending my account as of February 1st. I am hooked up with Netflix, figured out which shows I can buy through iTunes, Amazon, etc and still have an antenna for over the air networks. 

The only areas I see as real problems will be Baseball, the DVR and the DIY channels for my wife. Wonder which one of us will crack first?


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...because it failed before. Commercials serve a purpose in helping to pay for what you are watching.


 Did it actually fail, or did the providers see that they could make more money the way they do it now and have resisted it ever since?

Oh, and Netflix sure doesn't need any advertising to have 27 million customers in the US alone.

It's coming -- people are sick of being bombarded with channels they don't want or need, and advertisements at every turn.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

markrw58 said:


> I have had DTV for 16 years and am about to begin my attempt to live without DTV. I decided to give it a try because I just don't know if the service justifies the cost anymore so I will be suspending my account as of February 1st. I am hooked up with Netflix, figured out which shows I can buy through iTunes, Amazon, etc and still have an antenna for over the air networks.
> 
> The only areas I see as real problems will be Baseball, the DVR and the DIY channels for my wife. Wonder which one of us will crack first?


You can still get a Tivo DVR, or have one through your PC.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

CallMeCoach said:


> But how do we know they won't survive? And if it's quality programming, it will survive. That's capitalism and the free market at its best. If the channel doesn't survive, then obviously not enough people liked it or the content was terrible. Saying it doesn't work is saying it won't work for EVERY channel, but who cares? Someone else will just do it better if there is a market for it. The quality channels will survive, and everyone else will have to have competitive prices and quality content. It's not that hard to comprehend. Some company out there is going to start offering that and pull a whole lot of customers away.


Take a look at some recent Neilsen ratings. Unless you consider Honey Boo Boo quality, those are the types of shows that wil survive in an a-la-carte world. It's not about quality, it's about the quantity of viewers.

And those advertisements are what help fund the networks. If you take a look at an industry rate sheet you would see most ad supported non-sports channels are less than 50 cents, it's the channels that air sports like ESPN and TNT that are the most expensive, as well as some non-ad supported channels like Disney Channel. Then of course you got the real non-ad supported channels like HBO, Showtime and Starz which are in the $10-15 range.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171131 said:


> Did it actually fail, or did the providers see that they could make more money the way they do it now and have resisted it ever since?
> 
> Oh, and Netflix sure doesn't need any advertising to have 27 million customers in the US alone.
> 
> It's coming -- people are sick of being bombarded with channels they don't want or need, and advertisements at every turn.


It failed. Also, Netflix is a service provider. Ad sales benefit content providers. You cannot expect an industry to thrive while at the same time suggesting a gutting of its revenue.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I really miss the big dish days. When I have my 10 foot dish in the backyard with a legal descrambler, I was able to purchase individual channels a la carte and only payed about $20 a month. Of course there was no DVR at the time but it sure was cool and the picture was great (for non-HD).


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> Take a look at some recent Neilsen ratings. Unless you consider Honey Boo Boo quality, those are the types of shows that wil survive in an a-la-carte world. It's not about quality, it's about the quantity of viewers.


Yeah, well that's how it works. McDonalds doesn't live because the food is quality - ie good for you - they survive because it tastes good, is cheap, and provides quick/good service.

I cant stand Honey Boo Boo or Buckwild, or any of that garbage, but if the market dictates it survives over Current Tv, or The O Network, so be it! Be better than the next guy or be gone.



Hoosier205 said:


> It failed. Also, Netflix is a service provider. Ad sales benefit content providers. You cannot expect an industry to thrive while at the same time suggesting a gutting of its revenue.


That's the point: have a model similar to Netflix.

Company pays X channel X amount of dollars per customer, company then offers customer a variety of options for channels they want to watch for an amount enough above X to make a profit and provide quality service.

Price per channel = Cost + % of cost charged for profit


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Chris Blount said:


> I really miss the big dish days. When I have my 10 foot dish in the backyard with a legal descrambler, I was able to purchase individual channels a la carte and only payed about $20 a month. Of course there was no DVR at the time but it sure was cool and the picture was great (for non-HD).


What was a descrambler and when did the a la carte end and why?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171145 said:


> Yeah, well that's how it works. McDonalds doesn't live because the food is quality - ie good for you - they survive because it tastes good and provides good service.
> 
> I cant stand Honey Boo Boo or Buckwild, or any of that garbage, but if the market dictates it survives over Current Tv, or The O Network, so be it! Be better than the next guy or be gone.
> 
> ...


Then the cost simply shifts to companies like Netflix and their rates increase to the same levels we see with traditional providers. You simply do not understand the relationship between service providers, content owners, and production.

Still waiting for proof of your monthly rate changes...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> That's the point: have a model similar to Netflix.
> 
> Company pays X channel X amount of dollars per customer, company then offers customer a variety of options for channels they want to watch for an amount enough above X to make a profit and provide quality service.
> 
> Price per channel = Cost + % of cost charged for profit


The providers don't see it that way. They leverage their higher rated/interesting channels with the lesser for a package to be retransmitted.
They know they have some dogs, but if you want that cute puppy, you've got to also take the mutts too.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> Then the cost simply shifts to companies like Netflix and their rates increase to the same levels we see with traditional providers. You simply do not understand the relationship between service providers, content owners, and production.
> 
> Still waiting for proof of your monthly rate changes...


A.) You obviously haven't read much in this thread. I said I wouldn't be able to dig up the bills until tonight or tomorrow.

B.) That's such a blanket statement it's silly. "Their rates will just increase to the same levels with traditional providers" is stupid. if you want a whole bunch of channels, sure it might. But most people watch about 7 channels on a regular basis. Unless they're charging $18 per channel, I won't come anywhere close to what I'm paying now. That's the point: People don't want all of those channels, they want just what they want and that's.

But yet I don't understand the relationship.

Okay. Whatever you say. :lol:


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

This would work for folks who don't watch much live sports other than their local teams on local off air channels, and even if you do you could find around online to watch sports anyway, and if you watch a lot of TV shows series like the ones mention in the article there is plenty on Netflix and Hulu, not to mention there's even online live tv channels if you look around online.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> But yet I don't understand the relationship.


To "understand", you need to look at the retransmission fee controversies, where Fox, Vicom, etc. will withhold channels causing blackouts until the terms have been negotiated and agreed to by both parties.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171157 said:


> A.) You obviously haven't read much in this thread. I said I wouldn't be able to dig up the bills until tonight or tomorrow.
> 
> B.) That's such a blanket statement it's silly. "Their rates will just increase to the same levels with traditional providers" is stupid. if you want a whole bunch of channels, sure it might. But most people watch about 7 channels on a regular basis. Unless they're charging $18 per channel, I won't come anywhere close to what I'm paying now. That's the point: People don't want all of those channels, they want just what they want and that's.
> 
> ...


That's about how high rates would skyrocket to. You seem to be unaware that most channels are owned by companies that also own other channels that they bundle when selling to service providers. I'll slow it down...

Prices go way up.
Choices go way down.
Content providers make far less money.
Service providers make far less money.
Less money is available to buy content.
Less money is available for service providers to carry content.
Far less money is available for production.
You end up with far less, for a lot more.

As Netflix has grown in popularity, so have the rates they must pay for content. You cannot expect to shift customers to platforms like that without rates going up. A content owner isn't going to ask less from Netflix than they would from a traditional provider.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

> "Is the migration to a-la-carte enough that we can go that route? It has a way more important impact that (sic) just on them. It impacts how we negotiate TV contracts with studios. It's not something we can do overnight, but definitely something we've been looking at."
> tweet this
> 
> Krishnaswamy didn't spell out all the details, but here is what I read between the lines of this statement: Cord cutting isn't just about some people not paying for TV anymore, but also about enabling new and innovative business models, including unbundled subscriptions to individual channels. And Verizon is apparently ready to take the plunge as soon as the wave is big enough.


Things are obviously moving that way, and it doesn't look like it's stopping anytime soon.

An a la carte model and OTA antenna looks perfect to me.

http://gigaom.com/2012/09/06/fios-tv-cord-cutting/


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> Things are obviously moving that way, and it doesn't look like it's stopping anytime soon.


I'd put it more that service providers "want to" see it moving that way.
The content providers don't.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Hoosier205 said:


> As Netflix has grown in popularity, so have the rates they must pay for content. You cannot expect to shift customers to platforms like that without rates going up. A content owner isn't going to ask less from Netflix than they would from a traditional provider.


And Netflix isn't funding the development of any new series, most of the content they have is from other networks or via deals with a distributor for international shows that don't have US outlet.

Arrested Development doesn't count, the show already existed and had a following. It's not like starting from scratch where even a pilot that never gets picked up needs funding for everyone in the cast and crew for the one episode they filmed.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I would love to use OTA only but that would mean NO Red Wings, NO Tigers and NO Pistons only the Lions. Back when I was a kid I could watch all sports for free.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

acostapimps;3171159 said:


> This would work for folks who don't watch much live sports other than their local teams on local off air channels, and even if you do you could find around online to watch sports anyway, and if you watch a lot of TV shows series like the ones mention in the article there is plenty on Netflix and Hulu, not to mention there's even online live tv channels if you look around online.


All of that content exists and thrives because of the revenue created by retrans agreements with traditional providers. The scope of what we have narrows substantially without structure. A network like Comedy Central can exist because they know they have agreements with a certain number of providers that have a consistent number of subscribers in particular programming package levels and that generates a stable amount of revenue for them to base their business decisions on. A la carte throws that all out the window.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> And Netflix isn't funding the development of any new series, most of the content they have is from other networks or via deals with a distributor for international shows that don't have US outlet.
> 
> Arrested Development doesn't count, the show already existed and had a following. It's not like starting from scratch where even a pilot that never gets picked up needs funding for everyone in the cast and crew for the one episode they filmed.


They are moving in that direction and I'm sure that's on the horizon. They have so much to offer it's probably not an immediate need because they have 10% of the population paying for their service as it is without original programming.

They have the cash to do so, and I'm sure it will happen soon.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

CallMeCoach said:


> What was a descrambler and when did the a la carte end and why?


Back in the old days (which really isn't that long ago), you could tune to a channel, get the audio, but the video was all scrambled.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltdo556Y6h1r1x71p.jpg

The Disney channel used to be that way, unless it was a free preview weekend.

The descrambler brought the right video back.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171174 said:


> They are moving in that direction and I'm sure that's on the horizon. They have so much to offer it's probably not an immediate need because they have 10% of the population paying for their service as it is without original programming.
> 
> They have the cash to do so, and I'm sure it will happen soon.


Yet you expect them to take on large cost increases without an equal rate increase. Haha....oh my.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Go with netflix then but if everyone dose that the price will go way up. If you think the Disney Co and others is going to give up billons a year you are crazy.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

PCampbell;3171177 said:


> Go with netflix then but if everyone dose that the price will go way up. If you think the Disney Co and others is going to give up billons a year you are crazy.


+1


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> Yet you expect them to take on large cost increases without an equal rate increase. Haha....oh my.


Who said they weren't going to increase the price? And they have the cash on hand to start it - the price could come later.

Come on man, read between the lines!

A la carte is coming. Whether you like it or not. And it's already started by people like the writer of the article. This thread has basically talked me into it. I don't know why I haven't done it sooner.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

dpeters11 said:


> Back in the old days (which really isn't that long ago), you could tune to a channel, get the audio, but the video was all scrambled.
> 
> http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltdo556Y6h1r1x71p.jpg
> 
> ...


How was it legal to do so?


----------



## sangs (Apr 2, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Back in the old days (which really isn't that long ago), you could tune to a channel, get the audio, but the video was all scrambled.
> 
> http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltdo556Y6h1r1x71p.jpg
> 
> ...


Thanks for that outstanding link. That was a trip down memory lane.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> How was it legal to do so?


Gated sync is no longer in use, to easy to get around.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

PCampbell said:


> Gated sync is no longer in use, to easy to get around.


But Blount said he legally descrambled channels back in the day. How was it legal if you obviously weren't paying for the channel?


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

CallMeCoach said:


> But Blount said he legally descrambled channels back in the day. How was it legal if you obviously weren't paying for the channel?


By paying a service provider like NPS to authorize your descrambler. This is different than the scrambled channels on cable, this was directly via C-Band and they used a different method to scramble channels called Videocipher and Digicipher.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

CallMeCoach;3171184 said:


> Who said they weren't going to increase the price? And they have the cash on hand to start it - the price could come later.
> 
> Come on man, read between the lines!
> 
> A la carte is coming. Whether you like it or not. And it's already started by people like the writer of the article. This thread has basically talked me into it. I don't know why I haven't done it sooner.


A la carte may be coming...but not in the form you would like.

The "=" at the end of the equation is the content providers need to make their money.

Which means you would pay more for less channels than you have now.

The example earlier with ESPN being $4 to providers so a la carte would be only $5.50 cost to the subscriber? Not even close...


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

CallMeCoach said:


> A la carte is coming. Whether you like it or not. And it's already started by people like the writer of the article.


A la carte is quite different than locals via OTA and a Netflix account (which is what the article is about). "Cutting the cord" has been around for a long time and several members here have done it. But you can't get TNT, ESPN, USA, etc., etc. via OTA.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171184 said:


> Who said they weren't going to increase the price?


...your original complaint. A service like Netflix will be hampered by the same costs if the burden shifts to them.



CallMeCoach;3171184 said:


> A la carte is coming. Whether you like it or not. And it's already started by people like the writer of the article.


That isn't a la carte.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...your original complaint. A service like Netflix will be hampered by the same costs if the burden shifts to them.
> 
> That isn't a la carte.


I know it's not a la carte, but like the writer people are leaving because they can't justify the cost of all of those channels when they barely watched any of them.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Justin23 said:


> A la carte may be coming...but not in the form you would like.
> 
> The "=" at the end of the equation is the content providers need to make their money.
> 
> ...


Wasn't using those numbers as gospel, was just throwing them out there.

Oh, by the way:

ESPN average cost: $5.13

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...is-a-huge-rip-off-so-how-do-we-fix-it/265814/

Of course that would go up if everything was a la carte. But that's not the point. If even 1 company offered that it would be way cheaper for someone like me who only watches a handful of channels.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

And like usual many people posting in this thread seem to have ZERO knowledge of how the free market and capitalism works.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

sangs said:


> Thanks for that outstanding link. That was a trip down memory lane.


I actually originally linked to the actual page that was on, then realized that it started talking about some of the other things that were scrambled...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> I know it's not a la carte, but like the writer people are leaving because they can't justify the cost of all of those channels when they barely watched any of them.


So if "a la carte is coming", what's the hold up?

I'd imagine EVERY service provider could/would simply crunch the numbers to set a price where they make their profit and offer it to the customer. It's in their best interest and they increase/keep more customers.

When you're dealing with billion dollar corporations, they're all looking out for themselves, so the content providers sure look to be the ones that are the holdup, doesn't it?


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

pdxBeav said:


> And like usual many people posting in this thread seem to have ZERO knowledge of how the free market and capitalism works.


Thank you.

Whoever does it the best with a competitive/cheap rate, wins.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> Whoever does it the best with a competitive/cheap rate, wins.


Ideally this might be the case, but in "the real world", whoever leverages their position best wins.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

The price will not change until enough people drop all services Netflix include


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171213 said:


> I know it's not a la carte, but like the writer people are leaving because they can't justify the cost of all of those channels when they barely watched any of them.


While ignoring the cost of the content they do want. The content they do watch relies on the revenue from the content owners retrans deals with traditional providers and their ad sales.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

PCampbell;3171228 said:


> The price will not change until enough people drop all services Netflix include


That's also when the content disappears.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I'm no fan of current programming, and also only watch a handful of channels out of my package with any regularity. That being said, there is no way in hell I'd support a la carte. I firmly believe that would result in even higher pricing than we're paying now, without the side-benefit of the other channels you might tune into once in a while.


----------



## Skunkmutha (Aug 16, 2006)

fluffybear said:


> and what exactly is wrong with that? Would could really do without 10 channels showing reruns of Law & Order, NCIS, or Roseanne or programming like Hardcore Pawn and Lizard Lick Towing.
> People should be given the right to choose the stations they want. However, that's another debate which has been beaten to death... :beatdeadhorse:


Hardcore Pawn and Lizard Lick Towing are two of my favorite shows. What do you mean?


----------



## jeffgbailey (Feb 29, 2008)

Skunkmutha said:


> Hardcore Pawn and Lizard Lick Towing are two of my favorite shows. What do you mean?


AMEN!

If I could have A&E, TruTV and History along with my locals I'd be fine


----------



## jeffgbailey (Feb 29, 2008)

CallMeCoach said:


> Did you read the article? You get live sports on the over the air channels it talks about.


but you fail to realize while you get live sports unless its the NFL the odds of getting your favorite team on OTA are pretty slim. 
All the stations that show live sports have their favorites in the schedules already. So as a NHL fan my local team wont be on the NHL game of the week on NBC because they use the same 6 teams.
Baseball might be 5 or 6 games a year
NBA we do have some on local TV but never on ABC

NFL is different as they embrace (to a point) the networks and dont go running to the cable stations. While ESPN and NFL Net has games, if your team is one of them it will be on a OTA station (blackouts pending)

Heck even Nascar after Memorial Day pretty much requires cable/satellite for ESPN/TNT.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

I'm not sold that price would go up and content would go down from ala cart. Prices would be very competitive to see who would get the consumers dollar. I also doubt that the History Channel would still run Pawn Stars 24/7.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

inhd40 said:


> I'm not sold that price would go up and content would go down from ala cart. Prices would be very competitive to see who would get the consumers dollar. I also doubt that the History Channel would still run Pawn Stars 24/7.


You no longer have the guaranteed numbers that you use to set advertising rates. (What makes most non-sports basic cable channels less than 50 cents for the provider) The niche channels can no longer rely on bundling with their flagship sister stations so no more eyeballs passing by them as they flip channels or see them in the guide. Every network now needs to compete for the most amount of viewers to even get carriage which leads to program shifts with no sister station to dump the niche programming. (i.e. no ID or Military for Discovery)

Take a look at some recent Nielsen numbers, it's Honey Boo Boo, Family Guy reruns on TBS or Adult Swim, Monday Night Football, Monday Night Raw and Jersey Shore and its spinoffs that get the highest viewers.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

acostapimps said:


> This would work for folks who don't watch much live sports other than their local teams on local off air channels.


The only local teams I get regularly on OTA are the Ravens and Redskins. The Orioles and Nationals are about 5 games a year. The Wizards are none. The Capitals are none. There are some local college games but the vast, vast majority of them are on ESPN or other cable outlets.

The time of "free" sports are gone for the most part. More and more teams are going cable/satellite outlets only.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

inhd40;3171274 said:


> I'm not sold that price would go up and content would go down from ala cart. Prices would be very competitive to see who would get the consumers dollar. I also doubt that the History Channel would still run Pawn Stars 24/7.


They wouldn't because that show and that channel would go away.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

pdxBeav said:


> And like usual many people posting in this thread seem to have ZERO knowledge of how the free market and capitalism works.


We currently have a free market and capitalism. And it gave us the system we have today.

Those clamoring for a la carte are only looking at the consumer end of the equation and are EXTREMELY pollyanna-ish about the whole thing.

A free market finding its equilibrium is all about all forces (and there are many involved here: consumers, providers - including internet services, content owners, content creators and even more) coming to a balance.

Yes, consumers can change the equation by not buying as much as what is offered today, but the market is clearly not there for pure a la carte or massive cord cutting or someone would have already exploited it.

Companies like DirecTV, Comcast, Verizon, Amazon, Netflix, etc., are not stupid. They are finding their balance. And for the majority, the bundle still works.

Pure cord cutting basically only works for people who watch little TV, practically no sports whatsoever, or only watch movies or YouTube. For the vast majority of Americans, the linear channel, big selection system still works best.

Netflix, Hulu, etc., are living on the fringe and are happy to do so. They are making money on the portion of the market that they support. BTW, they also get money from us who have it all. Because sometimes you just want to dial up that Dick Van **** rerun or want to watch a movie that is not available today via other means.

And that makes me laugh. People look at the success of Netflix and say "see! cordcutting" when I would be the majority of Netflix users have cable or satellite and aren't cutting a damned thing.

edit to add: A free market means no interference by government. I am not aware that the government is forcing bundling. In fact, the nirvana of a la carte folks is supposed to be Canada, where the unbundling was forced by the government. Hmm, a la carte requires a non-free market to exist...


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

FLWingNut said:


> They wouldn't because that show and that channel would go away.


I doubt the History Channel would go away. H2 probably would, but who cares? They simply move that programming to the main channel. Might it be more expensive? Sure. Probably would be a push as far as price goes overall.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

inhd40;3171333 said:


> I doubt the History Channel would go away. H2 probably would, but who cares? They simply move that programming to the main channel. Might it be more expensive? Sure. Probably would be a push as far as price goes overall.


Then they also have far less revenue to pay for purchased content or to produce their own.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

inhd40 said:


> I doubt the History Channel would go away. H2 probably would, but who cares? They simply move that programming to the main channel. Might it be more expensive? Sure. Probably would be a push as far as price goes overall.


Let's see. H2 exists because the programming on it used to be on the History Channel but the folks at the History Channel saw their ratings go up when they pushed real history programming aside for reality programming. So, why would you think that when they are purely dollar driven for each viewer they would bring back the programming they abandoned because the ratings were low?

And who cares? So, we lose more choices. We get fewer opportunities for different types of programming. Who cares? We all get to watch the same crap. Fewer channels, fewer choices. At that is within the same genre!

And a push as far as price is concerned? You mean you are willing to pay $100 for 10 channels if you get 50 now for the same $100? Now, that is some wise consumerism!


----------



## bigglebowski (Jul 27, 2010)

Oh its this thread again...

Do some of you guys not get tired fighting the same battles over and over again. I mean I understand answering the same tech support type questions over and over for different people, but this???

Sorry for the interruption, carry on.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> Let's see. H2 exists because the programming on it used to be on the History Channel but the folks at the History Channel saw their ratings go up when they pushed real history programming aside for reality programming. So, why would you think that when they are purely dollar driven for each viewer they would bring back the programming they abandoned because the ratings were low?
> 
> And who cares? So, we lose more choices. We get fewer opportunities for different types of programming. Who cares? We all get to watch the same crap. Fewer channels, fewer choices. At that is within the same genre!
> 
> And a push as far as price is concerned? You mean you are willing to pay $100 for 10 channels if you get 50 now for the same $100? Now, that is some wise consumerism!


How are you losing anything? The same shows are on, just on less channels. I get that this could go the other way, that I might be wrong. I just can't see where anyone could know that the outcome would be bad. I guess if you like to say I get 400 channels, that is worth something.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

bigglebowski said:


> Oh its this thread again...
> 
> Do some of you guys not get tired fighting the same battles over and over again. I mean I understand answering the same tech support type questions over and over for different people, but this???
> 
> Sorry for the interruption, carry on.


Sorry. New guy here.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

inhd40;3171333 said:


> I doubt the History Channel would go away. H2 probably would, but who cares? They simply move that programming to the main channel. Might it be more expensive? Sure. Probably would be a push as far as price goes overall.


I care. I want choices and I don't want a TV universe full of just Honey Boo Boo, Real Housewives, reruns of Law and Order and the major networks. It's been explained ad nauseum, you'd pay the same or more for far fewer choices, choices that would be restricted to mass appeal, lowest common denominator programming.

Who wants that?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

inhd40 said:


> How are you losing anything? The same shows are on, just on less channels. I get that this could go the other way, that I might be wrong. I just can't see where anyone could know that the outcome would be bad. I guess if you like to say I get 400 channels, that is worth something.


More channels, more choices. If you cannot see that, not sure what you see at all.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

FLWingNut said:


> I care. I want choices and I don't want a TV universe full of just Honey Boo Boo, Real Housewives, reruns of Law and Order and the major networks. It's been explained ad nauseum, you'd pay the same or more for far fewer choices, choices that would be restricted to mass appeal, lowest common denominator programming.
> 
> Who wants that?


OK. I won't argue it any further. Obviously it would result in four stations running Honey Boo Boo 24/7.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

inhd40 said:


> How are you losing anything? The same shows are on, just on less channels. I get that this could go the other way, that I might be wrong. I just can't see where anyone could know that the outcome would be bad. I guess if you like to say I get 400 channels, that is worth something.


There's a reason why History moved the lower rated history shows to H2, why MTV, VH1 and CMT moved the music to MTV Hits, MTV Jams, VH1 Soul and CMT Pure Country, why the niche programming airs on Science, ID, Military, Destination America and Discovery Fit and Health instead of Discovery, why they put shows like Degrassi on TeenNick instead of Nickelodeon, why Portlandia airs on IFC and they started moving more of the independent films to Sundance. They already do it to try to get the most viewers, if in addition to that they now have to fight to even get in homes they're not going to reverse the trend.


inhd40 said:


> OK. I won't argue it any further. Obviously it would result in four stations running Honey Boo Boo 24/7.


It won't, it just will result in only Discovery with Shark Week and TLC with Honey Boo Boo remaining and no Science, ID, Military, Destination America or Fit and Health.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

inhd40;3171346 said:


> How are you losing anything? The same shows are on, just on less channels. I get that this could go the other way, that I might be wrong. I just can't see where anyone could know that the outcome would be bad. I guess if you like to say I get 400 channels, that is worth something.


The same shows would not be on.


----------



## ub1934 (Dec 30, 2005)

Chris Blount said:


> I really miss the big dish days. When I have my 10 foot dish in the backyard with a legal descrambler, I was able to purchase individual channels a la carte and only payed about $20 a month. Of course there was no DVR at the time but it sure was cool and the picture was great (for non-HD).


+1 :grin:


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> We currently have a free market and capitalism. And it gave us the system we have today.
> 
> Those clamoring for a la carte are only looking at the consumer end of the equation and are EXTREMELY pollyanna-ish about the whole thing.
> 
> ...


Of course the bundle works for the programmers and distributors. They make more money this way so they are going to try to maintain this model.

My free market comment was intended to mean that IF we had a la carte that the TV industry wouldn't die off. LOL. There would still be a lot of money to be made and people would figure out how to do it. Where there is demand there will be supply, even in an a la carte world.

But I think we all agree that the people making money off the current system don't want it changed and they will spread FUD in order to maintain the status quo.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

pdxBeav;3171382 said:


> Of course the bundle works for the programmers and distributors. They make more money this way so they are going to try to maintain this model.
> 
> My free market comment was intended to mean that IF we had a la carte that the TV industry wouldn't die off. LOL. There would still be a lot of money to be made and people would figure out how to do it. Where there is demand there will be supply, even in an a la carte world.
> 
> But I think we all agree that the people making money off the current system don't want it changed and they will spread FUD in order to maintain the status quo.


So. You want businesses to NOT make money?

If a la carte worked for everyone, then someone would be doing it. No one is. No one.

If businesses cannot make money on a la carte, it won't happen.

And who is spreading FUD? From my view, a la carte proponents are. They are spreading myth.

Again. Canada has sort of a la carte. Had to be forced on them by government edict. The opposite of a free market.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

What's the record for most posts on the first day on the board?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Satelliteracer;3171401 said:


> What's the record for most posts on the first day on the board?


Not sure, but it's probably VOS


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

27


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

Satelliteracer;3171401 said:


> What's the record for most posts on the first day on the board?


He's got jokes!


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> So. You want businesses to NOT make money?
> 
> If a la carte worked for everyone, then someone would be doing it. No one is. No one.
> 
> ...


Businesses will make money. Might not be the same businesses that make the money today, but people/companies will figure it out even if we have a la carte.

And I'm not saying it will happen. The programmers don't want it, there's no incentive for it to change. All I am saying is that IF it were to change money would still be made and content would still be produced and people would still have jobs and people would still watch TV.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Al a carte pricing would be like airline deregulation...a case of be careful what you wish for.

When I was in my 20's and had a job that required me to fly all around the world, every airline seat came with a hot meal, a courteous flight attendant, free baggage check, and 26" of leg room. Sure, fares were high.

Then we had deregulation. Now you have to pay for peanuts and cookies (you can't get a hot meal if you want one on many flights), the crews are over worked and short tempered, you have to pay to check a bag, you get 18" of leg room (unless you pay extra), and fares are slightly lower. Oh, and we went from over 20 airlines to 5, with far less competition at most airports, and some airports losing scheduled service completely.

If you want to the same thing to TV, go ahead and push for al a carte.


----------



## RD in Fla (Aug 26, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I actually originally linked to the actual page that was on, then realized that it started talking about some of the other things that were scrambled...


Now that's a trip down memory lane. Almost can recall the transponder and channel #'s. :lol:


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Are we ever going to see these bills where the prices and fees change monthly?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

bixler;3171444 said:


> Are we ever going to see these bills where the prices and fees change monthly?


Tomorrow he says...tomorrow. Or the next day. Those account statements on the DirecTV website take ages to track down.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Tomorrow he says...tomorrow. Or the next day. Those account statements on the DirecTV website take ages to track down.


I have to agree with you on this. I can't wait to see these Account statements.:lol:

I know I can pull mine up in a few seconds.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I have to agree with you on this. I can't wait to see these Account statements.:lol:
> 
> I know I can pull mine up in a few seconds.


Yeah, looking forward to it. Prices don't just randomly change. Now, there are promotional programs that customers sign up for where credits are involved and eventually the credits go away. HD Extra Pack for example, or sometimes a Premium or sign up for Auto Bill Pay. The prices aren't changing, it's the credit going away after a short term offer that the customer willingly accepts.

I do look forward to it, however. Maybe I'm missing something and will give him the benefit of the doubt, but a lot in this thread makes my head hurt. Most people simply don't understand the issues at hand and what it would mean for a la carte, etc. This isn't making widgets and it's not picking songs off an album that costs about $100K to make. Just a totally different world, totally different economics but folks want to force one economic model from a totally different industry onto another.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

... and another al a carte thread. Would be nice if it worked the way people think it would when only looking at it from the consumer side. But, as many people have said, if a company could dominate the market offering al a carte, why is no one doing it? Because it does not work.

Choices and options are what make America go 'round. For all of those who say, "Let's lose a bunch of channels and shows to get the cost down" are generally only thinking of themselves. Just because you think a show is terrible or fantastic does not mean the next person does. And content owners don't care about either; they only care about what brings in ratings and advertising. D* does not raise rates because they want to. As prices inflate, so must their charges. At least they make you aware of it before it happens unlike some other providers(I'm sure you guys know a few).


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Skunkmutha said:


> Hardcore Pawn and Lizard Lick Towing are two of my favorite shows. What do you mean?


I have no issue with what you like or want to watch. However, it would be nice if we had to choice to pick and pay for only the channels you wanted.

I fully understand why this does not exist and can live with it but it doesn't hurt to dream!!


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

goinsleeper said:


> ... and another al a carte thread. Would be nice if it worked the way people think it would when only looking at it from the consumer side. But, as many people have said, if a company could dominate the market offering al a carte, why is no one doing it? Because it does not work.


The reason they aren't doing it is because they are maximizing their profits with the current model. It has nothing to do with working or not working.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Lord, if that's true, I weep for this country and its future. 



KyL416 said:


> Take a look at some recent Nielsen numbers, it's Honey Boo Boo, Family Guy reruns on TBS or Adult Swim, Monday Night Football, Monday Night Raw and Jersey Shore and its spinoffs that get the highest viewers.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

pdxBeav;3171546 said:


> The reason they aren't doing it is because they are maximizing their profits with the current model. It has nothing to do with working or not working.


False. It is not a viable option for either side of the equation.


----------



## macfan601 (May 4, 2012)

I have another way to look at this for the original poster. I have the Premier package. With it and my extras I pay a little bit less than $150 a month. I could care less about sports but I am a big movie fan. The Premier package provides the Premium channels so I can get my movies. Now I would say the average ticket price at a movie complex is around $8 and there are roughly an average of 30 days in a month. So if I watch only one movie a day it would cost me $240 at the movie complex. That makes my Directv seem like a real bargain to me considering all of the extras I get besides my one movie a day.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

pdxBeav said:


> The reason they aren't doing it is because they are maximizing their profits with the current model. It has nothing to do with working or not working.





Hoosier205 said:


> False. It is not a viable option for either side of the equation.


Right idea, wrong target. Just think about it and follow the money. The consumer pays DirecTV, but does DirecTV get to keep all the money? Although some may think so, the dirty little secret is the DirecTV, as well as being a supplier, is also a consumer. Who do _they_ buy from? The networks. (Do you think DirecTV gets all the networks for _free_? If you do, I've got some beachfront property just outside Tempe, AZ I want to talk to you about!) The networks are the ones who do not want ala carte. They can't keep churning out new channels and forcing the cable/satellite providers to carry them if ala carte was instituted. That's also why no provider has stepped out and offered it on its own. Even when trying to offer lower cost options, DirecTV has to include ESPN if it wants to be able to carry many of the other Disney-owned networks (including ABC.) Also, network owners will force providers to carry low rated "niche" channels by tying them to the more popular channels.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

pdxBeav said:


> The reason they aren't doing it is because they are maximizing their profits with the current model. It has nothing to do with working or not working.


That's not true, there are a whole bunch of "experts" on an internet message board that say it wouldn't work. lol


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> False. It is not a viable option for either side of the equation.


False


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

242424 said:


> That's not true, there are a whole bunch of "experts" on an internet message board that say it wouldn't work. lol


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

242424;3171668 said:


> That's not true, there are a whole bunch of "experts" on an internet message board that say it wouldn't work. lol


It only takes a bit of common sense and basic logic.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

I just love seeing all these posts from people who claim a la carte simply will not work with no proof. All a bunch of sheep buying into, and parroting, the propaganda of the industry that is making huge money off the system they have shoved down our throats.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

pfp;3171698 said:


> I just love seeing all these posts from people who claim a la carte simply will not work with no proof. All a bunch of sheep buying into, and parroting, the propaganda of the industry that is making huge money off the system they have shoved down our throats.


It has failed before. We know why. We also know why it would fail again. It isn't a topic being taken seriously by anyone with even a basic understanding of the dynamics involved. It would bring far less channels, at much higher costs. You want something, yet you fail to understand how it works and what impact it would have.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

242424 said:


> That's not true, there are a whole bunch of "experts" on an internet message board that say it wouldn't work. lol


There's a bunch of experts for the last 10 years that have said the same thing. If it was so easy, such a slam dunk, someone would have done it by now.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

pdxBeav said:


> The reason they aren't doing it is because they are maximizing their profits with the current model. It has nothing to do with working or not working.


Is it a bad thing that US companies are profitable?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

One could argue over the cost of your local channels, as the stations broadcast them over the air.

The "cable channels", would become a subset of the premium channels, with a tiered pricing.

Figure the service provider will have a base fee, and might need to go a la carte for calls to customer service.

Figure the lowest channel cost might be like what a DNS channel costs [$1.50?].

ESPN might be in the $5-10 range.

"Niche" channels would either get dropped, or their price might be close to what ESPN costs, as the cost of the content needs to be recovered.

For some this might end up cheaper, but it sounds more like I'd get less channels for the same price.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171031 said:


> Is anyone else sick of the price game with these guys? I'm about ready to do what this article says. I got on this forum just to vent about it. Price is constantly changing, I have extra charges for stuff I didn't want, and no work with me on getting HBO.
> 
> Check out this article, has anyone else ever done this? Not sure how I'd like no ESPN, but it sure beats the frustration and money I'm wasting! I think I'm about to do it.
> 
> http://voices.yahoo.com/how-saved-thousands-part-2-cable-sattelite-bill-11989305.html?cat=3


It's now tomorrow. Still awaiting these statements that show monthly rate changes...


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> Is it a bad thing that US companies are profitable?


Of course not, but that has nothing to do with the argument. Many claim a TV apocalypse if we had a la carte. It's simply not true. It's not backed up by any evidence other than baseless hearsay.

As has been said many many times. A la carte isn't done today because it would result is less profits. Again, nothing wrong with that, but that's the reason. Simple facts.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

pdxBeav;3171781 said:


> It's simply not true.


Proof?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

pdxBeav said:


> As has been said many many times. A la carte isn't done today because it would result is less profits. Again, nothing wrong with that, but that's the reason. Simple facts.


I disagree. 
The profit structure would merely change, as no company is going to work at a loss for very long.

Take the a la carte to the extreme, and have every program pay per view. Money will still be made, but at what cost to the customer? 50¢ per show like Itunes?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Which show would be only fifty cents on iTunes? I sure haven't seen any. More like $2-$3 per episode.


----------



## Cyber36 (Mar 20, 2008)

Ok kids, let's try a little experiment(ala Beakman). Those of you who want a-la-carte programming, call your provider right now & cancel your account. Tell them the only way you'll be back is if they offer that. Let's see how long it takes for them to implement it. I'm guessing they won't even bat an eye till the number reaches 8 million.........


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Which show would be only fifty cents on iTunes? I sure haven't seen any. More like $2-$3 per episode.


Never used iTunes, so that was just a wag, but your $2-3 per show just proves the point.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Cyber36 said:


> Ok kids, let's try a little experiment(ala Beakman). Those of you who want a-la-carte programming, call your provider right now & cancel your account. Tell them the only way you'll be back is if they offer that. Let's see how long it takes for them to implement it. I'm guessing they won't even bat an eye till the number reaches 8 million.........


People like to vent more than take action.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

pdxBeav said:


> A la carte isn't done today because it would result is less profits.


Less profits = Charge more for channels

^ That is why it won't work.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Never used iTunes, so that was just a wag, but your $2-3 per show just proves the point.


It does, doesn't it!

The problem is that if we all went IPTV today and cancelled our subscriptions, then could the content makers provide the same shows at even that price on an individual basis?

I don't think so. I think we'd then see those IPTV subscriptions and show rental fees skyrocket as something has to pay the production costs and allow for profit to the content makers.

The reason IPTV is even as good as it is today is because we as subscribers to pay tv are subsidizing the content costs.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> The short answer: It doesn't work. It hasn't worked.


I agree that a la carte will be very difficult to introduce. The suppliers don't like it and it would further complicate the cable and satellite providers bills, although these bills are already pretty complicated. But to say it hasn't worked seems incorrect. Where has it been tried?

Bill


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

pdxBeav said:


> As has been said many many times. A la carte isn't done today because it would result is less profits. Again, nothing wrong with that, but that's the reason. Simple facts.


Hmm. So you are seeing why it doesn't happen. Because in a free market, companies have a say in the business exchange.

So, this freight train you and others are claiming (that a la carte is coming) is based purely on total rejection by consumers of the current PRICING (not the model; they have embraced the model; it is the pricing they have issue with). In other words, fantasy. "Come the revolution!"


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

billsharpe said:


> I agree that a la carte will be very difficult to introduce. The suppliers don't like it and it would further complicate the cable and satellite providers bills, although these bills are already pretty complicated. But to say it hasn't worked seems incorrect. Where has it been tried?
> 
> Bill


BUD.

And it failed. Once feeds became scrambled and you needed to buy the rights, the channels defaulted to brokers who saw no value in doing channel by channel and went more and more to bundles with the largest savings (price per channel) being on the biggest bundle.

Administrative costs alone doomed a la carte in the BUD realm. And that was a small market place. Imagine the administrative costs for millions and millions of customers.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I disagree.
> The profit structure would merely change, as no company is going to work at a loss for very long.
> 
> Take the a la carte to the extreme, and have every program pay per view. Money will still be made, but at what cost to the customer? 50¢ per show like Itunes?


Let's look at movies a la carte.

A movie in a theater costs around ten bucks, but that gives you the movie theater experience.

A PPV costs around 6 (?) bucks. That is a la carte. Even old movies cost $3 to $4 bucks.

But HBO, with several channels, showing lots of movies costs $12-$15 a month. And you can watch them over and over and even keep them on a DVR or download them on demand. (There are hundreds of movies available on HBO on demand, so you get access to them at pennies per.)

If you watch 4 movies a month, the theater costs you $40. The PPV costs you $12 to $24, depending on the age of the movie. But HBO costs you $12-$15 for those plus hundreds more.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Hmm. So you are seeing why it doesn't happen. Because in a free market, companies have a say in the business exchange.
> 
> So, this freight train you and others are claiming (that a la carte is coming) is based purely on total rejection by consumers of the current PRICING (not the model; they have embraced the model; it is the pricing they have issue with). In other words, fantasy. "Come the revolution!"


I don't believe I ever claimed a la carte was coming. And if I did I know it'll be a long time and won't be easy. The ONLY point I'm arguing is that IF we had a la carte for whatever reason (govt. mandate, distributor revolt, etc), that the TV industry wouldn't die like most people here are claiming. Sure, it might not be the same, but people and companies would adapt to the new model and figure out how to make money. Companies have had to adapt and change throughout the history of business. Some companies adapt, some don't. And new companies spring up to take advantage of an opportunity. That's it, nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> It's now tomorrow. Still awaiting these statements that show monthly rate changes...


Dear God, I was just going to ignore this thread and let it die, but Hoosier seems bent on making me show the prices on my bills. So be it. So, here goes. I hope you will atleast shut up when I'm done posting the prices.

I'll give you 4 months here and show what I mean. Mind you, I added nothing during this time.

*August: $152*

This was because of an early NFL ticket option I clearly didn't want and called to tell them so and they took it off of my bill, which brought it down to $97.99. More than the $86 i was to be paying for my Plus HD DVR service.

*Sept: $93 *

It was now $5 less for some odd reason, but it still wasn't what I was sup to be paying.

*Oct: $94*

Okay, now it's $1 more than it was the month before. Again, no idea why the fees/price changed on me for no reason.

*Nov: $86*

Finally after calling and threatening to leave things magically came to the price I expected. $82.99 plus taxes.

Now, I don't have the time to go through and post every single fee from every month, but these are the bills I was charged in said months. Other than the mistake on the NFL ticket, they're not huge differences, but there are differences and it's beyond annoying. There are other months where things I didn't know about ended like an extra HD package of channels I didn't want and things of that sort, but this gets the point across.

By the way, I am no longer a DTV customer. I'm over it, and Hoosier convinced me it his undying love for DTV. I hope you enjoy paying for crap you don't want, I cut the cord!

PS

This whole, "a la carte won't ever work!" argument is the same thing people were saying about the music industry: "It's so much cheaper paying $12 for a Cd than it would be to buy them individually." Well guess what, the internet changed music just like it's going to change TV. You now pay $1.29 per song for most songs on iTunes and it costs more than buying the CD as a whole. It took a while, but it happened, just like it will happen here. And obviously people don't care about paying a little more. If they do care about it, they just steal the MP3's on a file sharing price. The same is happening with TV online. You guys can stay blind as long as you want, but in the end just like the music industry, TV will follow suit.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Let's look at movies a la carte.
> 
> A movie in a theater costs around ten bucks, but that gives you the movie theater experience.
> 
> ...


Not to disagree, and more to just vent about HBO, but if there was an a la carte for their offerings, I'd jump on it in a NY min. I'm currently in a void for a couple of months with little to nothing worth watching on HBO. I'm sure others may find things worth watching, but I'm at a loss.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> You guys can stay blind as long as you want, but in the end just like the music industry, TV will follow suit.


!rolling


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

veryoldschool said:


> Not to disagree, and more to just vent about HBO, but if there was an a la carte for their offerings, I'd jump on it in a NY min. I'm currently in a void for a couple of months with little to nothing worth watching on HBO. I'm sure others may find things worth watching, but I'm at a loss.


And to top that - HBO is not an equivalent for the theater or PPV. You don't get to choose what's on those premium movie channels, you have to watch what they choose to play. That's the whole point of a la carte, choice. You pay for only what you want.

The few times I've had HBO it was a complete waste of money on the movie side. I rarely ever found anything I really wanted to watch. And that's nothing like the experience of a movie theater - people are willing to pay extra to go to a theater to watch a movie. A.0 It's exactly what they want B.) The screen, sound, and atmosphere are what draws people in.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

veryoldschool said:


> !rolling


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> And that's nothing like the experience of a movie theater....


Yeah there's nothing like the kid behind you screaming, your seat being kicked, or the person in front blocking your view. :lol:


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

veryoldschool said:


> Yeah there's nothing like the kid behind you screaming, your seat being kicked, or the person in front blocking your view. :lol:


Stop going to see teen movies or animation, you're very old! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

pdxBeav said:


> I don't believe I ever claimed a la carte was coming. And if I did I know it'll be a long time and won't be easy. The ONLY point I'm arguing is that IF we had a la carte for whatever reason (govt. mandate, distributor revolt, etc), that the TV industry wouldn't die like most people here are claiming. Sure, it might not be the same, but people and companies would adapt to the new model and figure out how to make money. Companies have had to adapt and change throughout the history of business. Some companies adapt, some don't. And new companies spring up to take advantage of an opportunity. That's it, nothing more and nothing less.


Fair enough.

But also, nobody is saying it will die. They are saying that fewer programs would get created and that the range of those programs would narrow.

If you don't want anyone to misstate your position, don't misstate theirs.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

If I'm watching a movie I prefer at home on my big screen. With captions to make following dialog easier. The ability to pause and use the restroom whenever I need to and if someone doesn't understand what just happened we can talk about it without worrying about disturbing someone else.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> Stop going to see teen movies or animation, you're very old! :lol: :lol: :lol:


"I'm so old" it's been 10 years since going to the movies and it was for _The Sum of All Fears _as I'd read the book.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> And to top that - HBO is not an equivalent for the theater or PPV. You don't get to choose what's on those premium movie channels, you have to watch what they choose to play. That's the whole point of a la carte, choice. You pay for only what you want.


Only of what they provide to you.

You can't walk into a theater and ask for a movie they aren't showing, so don't try to use that argument. Both a la carte and bundle have limitations in what is available.

In a la carte, you don't pay for what you want. You pay for want you want of the inventory provided. Big difference.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't know, the most annoying kid experience I've had in the theater in the past few years was Predators.

As for the changes in the billing, we won't know where those come from, but I've never had DirecTV add a service without my knowing it. If I forget to cancel the HD extra pack before the three month trial is over, I get charged as I should. Other things like so much HBO free, it drops off automatically. Different kind of promotion.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Not to disagree, and more to just vent about HBO, but if there was an a la carte for their offerings, I'd jump on it in a NY min. I'm currently in a void for a couple of months with little to nothing worth watching on HBO. I'm sure others may find things worth watching, but I'm at a loss.


There is.

Amazon.

Buy or rent the movies and a very large increase in cost.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> There is.


Actually PPV might work, as two a month might beat what HBO has had of interest in the last couple of months.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> Only of what they provide to you.
> 
> You can't walk into a theater and ask for a movie they aren't showing, so don't try to use that argument. Both a la carte and bundle have limitations in what is available.
> 
> In a la carte, you don't pay for what you want. You pay for want you want of the inventory provided. Big difference.


What? Are you serious? So you're saying theaters should offer every movie ever made? lol - that's what renting and PPV are for. No one would argue they don't like going to amovie theater because no one is playing Howard The Duck :lol: :lol: :lol:

The whole point was, when you go to a theater you go because you want to see a certain movie, don't want to wait to rent it, and like the experience.

To say you can't use the choices the theater gives you as an argument is about the worst one I've heard in my 2 days here.

Lol - some of you guys need to turn off the tube and go outside for a while! Geez!


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

veryoldschool said:


> "I'm so old" it's been 10 years since going to the movies and it was for _The Sum of All Fears _as I'd read the book.


Geez grandpa, have did you forget your medicine this morning? :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> Geez grandpa, have did you forget your medicine this morning? :lol:


I don't think so, as I can still type a meaningful post, which looks at a problem for you this morning.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

CallMeCoach said:


> Geez grandpa, have did you forget your medicine this morning? :lol:


I'd recommend staying off his lawn though....


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3171956 said:


> Dear God, I was just going to ignore this thread and let it die, but Hoosier seems bent on making me show the prices on my bills. So be it. So, here goes. I hope you will atleast shut up when I'm done posting the prices.
> 
> I'll give you 4 months here and show what I mean. Mind you, I added nothing during this time.
> 
> ...


Still waiting...you've shown nothing. You said your rate was changing from month to month. Bogus...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'd recommend staying off his lawn though....


Have you got the rock salt out of your butt yet? :lol:


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

veryoldschool said:


> I don't think so, as I can still type a meaningful post, which looks at a problem for you this morning.


Yeah, because your insight enlightened so many of us today we're indebted to your everlasting intelligence.

PS - I hope you've got more than rocksalt.



Hoosier205 said:


> Still waiting...you've shown nothing. You said your rate was changing from month to month. Bogus...


Just go away. I'm not typing out every single line on my bill, and I'm not photocopying it so you can internet stalk me like a weirdo. I just took the time to go through my bills and post the price differences and you still want more. Would you like my SS # too?

Today I am no longer a DTV customer, so I really don't care anymore. The extra $100 in my pocket a month and the lack of hassle and frustration will be very, very worth it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> Yeah, because your insight enlightened so many of us today we're indebted to your everlasting intelligence.


I'm merely trying to offset your naïveté


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

veryoldschool said:


> I'm merely trying to offset your naïveté


Try harder.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

CallMeCoach;3171956 said:


> August: $152
> 
> This was because of an early NFL ticket option I clearly didn't want and called to tell them so and they took it off of my bill, which brought it down to $97.99. More than the $86 i was to be paying for my Plus HD DVR service.
> 
> ...


For the NFL Sunday Ticket charge, why is it something you "clearly didn't want"? Did you have it previously and it was auto-renewed?

And what are these "things I didn't know about" ending?

I understand about you not wanting to post every single fee/charge...but something has to be different on those bills. The credits, PPV, taxes, base package changes, etc. Some more info would be helpful.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> Try harder.


It not worth it, as age hopefully will do it for you.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Justin23 said:


> For the NFL Sunday Ticket charge, why is it something you "clearly didn't want"? Did you have it previously and it was auto-renewed?
> 
> And what are these "things I didn't know about" ending?
> 
> I understand about you not wanting to post every single fee/charge...but something has to be different on those bills. The credits, PPV, taxes, base package changes, etc. Some more info would be helpful.


The 'things I didn't know about' were things that were offered to me, or thrown in and I either wasn't aware of them like the extra HD channels, or didn't realize they were a part of another package because it wasn't explained to me. Maybe I didn't hear the sales rep say they were (unlikely, since I'm a Nazi about my bills) or there just isn't enough explanation about them over the phone. Either way, there were several times I had things on my bill I didn't want on there.

I will see if I can find the specifics of the charges later, but I honestly don't feel like arguing about it anymore. It's a silly thing to argue about, and why people like Hoosier wants to get into a urination match about it I have no idea.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

CallMeCoach;3172026 said:


> The 'things I didn't know about' were things that were offered to me, or thrown in and I either wasn't aware of them like the extra HD channels, or didn't realize they were a part of another package.
> 
> I will see if I can find the specifics of the charges later, but I honestly don't feel like arguing about it anymore. It's a silly thing to argue about, and why people like Hoosier wants to get into a urination match about it I have no idea.


No arguing here...just trying to see why it was different.

One of the things I like about D* vs other TV providers is their bills are very detailed with the full charge & discount.

Here in Orlando (BrightHouse), they just list the discounted rate so you have no idea what the real price is or how much you are saving.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

veryoldschool said:


> It not worth it, as age hopefully will do it for you.


That's a good out for you - another wise post to bless us with. You're on a roll.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Unless you list every charge, credit and tax that appeared on each of those bills no one here can help you either explain why it changed each month or if possible you were indeed incorrectly charged for something.

Go look at Satelliteracer's post a few pages ago. He listed the possibilities, but he won't be able to give you a definitive answer unless you list every item on the bill:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=3171462&postcount=100


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Justin23 said:


> No arguing here...just trying to see why it was different.
> 
> One of the things I like about D* vs other TV providers is their bills are very detailed with the full charge & discount.
> 
> Here in Orlando (BrightHouse), they just list the discounted rate so you have no idea what the real price is or how much you are saving.


I don't want to argue either; heck, I got on here to vent a little and gain some insight, didn't realize I'd be defending the price of my DTV bills.

The sad thing is I used to love DTV. It was a great company. I loved the HD, the Sunday Ticket was amazing for a football fan, and the prices were very worth it compared to cable. Just felt like as time goes on they are less and less willing to work with me. Oh well, water under the bridge. I cut the cord, so I'll see how I like it.


----------



## plexaz (Jan 30, 2013)

veryoldschool;3172002 said:


> Have you got the rock salt out of your butt yet? :lol:


----------



## plexaz (Jan 30, 2013)

veryoldschool;3172002 said:


> Have you got the rock salt out of your butt yet? :lol:




Too funny!


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> Unless you list every charge, credit and tax that appeared on each of those bills no one here can help you either explain why it changed each month or if possible you were indeed incorrectly charged for something.
> 
> Go look at Satelliteracer's post a few pages ago. He listed the possibilities, but he won't be able to give you a definitive answer unless you list every item on the bill:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=3171462&postcount=100


Thanks Kyl. That's the kind of post I was hoping for on here.

I will check out that link, but I don't like the chances of any refund now that I've cancelled. Would they still refund me as a non customer if I can prove I overpaid?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3172006 said:


> Just go away. I'm not typing out every single line on my bill, and I'm not photocopying it so you can internet stalk me like a weirdo. I just took the time to go through my bills and post the price differences and you still want more. Would you like my SS # too?


You are the one who claimed your rate was changing from month to month. You are also the one who said you would provide something to back up that claim. You have not done it.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

CallMeCoach said:


> I will check out that link, but I don't like the chances of any refund now that I've cancelled. Would they still refund me as a non customer if I can prove I overpaid?


If they indeed incorrectly charged you, you likely won't get a refund unless your account is still active pending a final payment since you already cancelled. If you came here before cancelling and provided the information requested so you can get a better explanation first you might have had a chance.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach said:


> Thanks Kyl. That's the kind of post I was hoping for on here.
> 
> I will check out that link, but I don't like the chances of any refund now that I've cancelled. Would they still refund me as a non customer if I can prove I overpaid?


Refund? No one ever said anything about a refund.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> What? Are you serious? So you're saying theaters should offer every movie ever made? lol - that's what renting and PPV are for. No one would argue they don't like going to amovie theater because no one is playing Howard The Duck :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> The whole point was, when you go to a theater you go because you want to see a certain movie, don't want to wait to rent it, and like the experience.
> 
> ...


Come on. I was responding to your claim that you pay for "what you want" claiming that you have that freedom with a la carte that you don't have with bundles. But that is not true. You only can pay for what you want from within the list of choices, so you are NOT paying for what you want. You are paying for what you WATCH, not what you WANT.

There is a big difference. If you can't see it, then there is no reasoning with you.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> I don't want to argue either; heck, I got on here to vent a little and gain some insight, didn't realize I'd be defending the price of my DTV bills.


Yes, because when you make an outlandish claim, you never have to back it up with data and facts and information.



CallMeCoach said:


> The sad thing is I used to love DTV. It was a great company. I loved the HD, the Sunday Ticket was amazing for a football fan, and the prices were very worth it compared to cable. Just felt like as time goes on they are less and less willing to work with me. Oh well, water under the bridge. I cut the cord, so I'll see how I like it.


Hope the joy of saving money overcomes the hassles of having to manage multiple sources of varying quality and quantity and reliability. Have fun.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> Come on. I was responding to your claim that you pay for "what you want" claiming that you have that freedom with a la carte that you don't have with bundles. But that is not true. You only can pay for what you want from within the list of choices, so you are NOT paying for what you want. You are paying for what you WATCH, not what you WANT.
> 
> There is a big difference. If you can't see it, then there is no reasoning with you.


So wait a second, when you pay to go to theater you're not watching what you want? And from that logic, it's the same thing with D*. You only watch what you want within their limitations. And heck, that's the truth for everything in life. You don't always eat exactly what you want because maybe alaskan crab isn't available where you live. That's a weak, weak argument. I don't know anyone who goes to the movie to watch things they don't want to watch. They go, pay, and watch when something they want is on. Not like D* where you have to pay whether or not there's something on that you want to watch unless you want a collections claim filed on you that is.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> Yes, because when you make an outlandish claim, you never have to back it up with data and facts and information.


A satellite company charging you more than what you expected/agreed to is an outlandish claim? :icon_lol:



> Hope the joy of saving money overcomes the hassles of having to manage multiple sources of varying quality and quantity and reliability. Have fun.


:lol: Let's see, Netflix and my remote control for OTA aren't very multiple. And both are extremely reliable. We'll see how it goes. Have fun paying $1800 a year for Honey Boo Boo, Buckwild, TBBT re-runs, and advertisements.



KyL416 said:


> If they indeed incorrectly charged you, you likely won't get a refund unless your account is still active pending a final payment since you already cancelled. If you came here before cancelling and provided the information requested so you can get a better explanation first you might have had a chance.


Yeah, I should have done that first I guess.



Hoosier205 said:


> Refund? No one ever said anything about a refund.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> A satellite company charging you more than what you expected/agreed to is an outlandish claim? :icon_lol:


Your outlandish claim was that your bill changed every month for no reason that you could give. That is the outlandish claim. Now you are just trolling.



CallMeCoach said:


> :lol: Let's see, Netflix and my remote control for OTA aren't very multiple. And both are extremely reliable. We'll see how it goes. Have fun paying $1800 a year for Honey Boo Boo, Buckwild, TBBT re-runs, and advertisements.


If all I had was Netflix and OTA, I would go to a bar. Nowhere near enough programming for me. Netflix is actually pretty scant. And the sports you get is next to nothing. A very small percentage of sports is OTA.

Nice to see, BTW, that you posted a picture of yourself. Someone who slams in here on the first day and makes wild claims then tries to walk away is, by definition, a troll.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3172066 said:


> A satellite company charging you more than what you expected/agreed to is an outlandish claim? :icon_lol:


You have yet to offer anything to support that claim. If you could, you would.


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

pdxBeav said:


> And like usual many people posting in this thread seem to have ZERO knowledge of how the free market and capitalism works.


Free market / capitalism - DIRECTV provides what they want to provide. If you don't like it take your money some place else. I'm not sure you fully understand free market / capitalism.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> Your outlandish claim was that your bill changed every month for no reason that you could give. That is the outlandish claim. Now you are just trolling.


I went through and posted the prices of my bills. Like I said earlier, I'm not going to go through line by line. And I'm surely not going to post a picture of them.



> If all I had was Netflix and OTA, I would go to a bar. Nowhere near enough programming for me. Netflix is actually pretty scant. And the sports you get is next to nothing. A very small percentage of sports is OTA.


Well, that's too bad for you. I have a life outside of the television, and there are plenty of other ways to get sports. I can order the internet only packages for NBA and MLB and still save a ton of money in the process.



> Nice to see, BTW, that you posted a picture of yourself. Someone who slams in here on the first day and makes wild claims then tries to walk away is, by definition, a troll.


First off, I didn't walk away. 2nd, do you always just pay a bill without looking further into it? because I don't. In case you live under a rock and are ignorant, companies try to pull the wool over your eyes all of the time. I have so many examples of companies doing shady things to me to make an extra buck it's ridiculous.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

CallMeCoach said:


> I went through and posted the prices of my bills and how they were different. Like I said earlier, I'm not going to go through line by line. And I'm surely not going to post a picture of them.


No ones asking for a picture, but if you don't list them line by line don't expect to get an answer on why it changed each month.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> No ones asking for a picture, but if you don't list them line by line don't expect to get an answer on why it changed each month.


I'm not. Like I said, I'm done with it. I cut the cord.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3172086 said:


> I went through and posted the prices of my bills and how they were different. Like I said earlier, I'm not going to go through line by line. And I'm surely not going to post a picture of them.


You could have easily copy and pasted the line items from your statements online or used the same items from a paper bill, without any personal or identifying information. You chose not to. You made a claim, you said you would back it up...you haven't. You have provided the least amount of data possible without giving nothing at all.

Rates do not change from month to month. There are some rate increases introduced once a year, at the same time. If your bill total changes from month to month, it is because you are making changes to your service or you have credits lapsing or beginning. You rate does not change from month to month.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3172090 said:


> I'm not. Like I said, I'm done with it. I cut the cord.


That's fine. Then we must conclude that your initial claims were, in fact, false. Had they been true, you would have followed through with your offer to prove it.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> That's fine. Then we must conclude that your initial claims were, in fact, false. Had they been true, you would have followed through with your offer to prove it.


You're right, I lied. I made it all up. My bill never changed, I was never charged different prices, and those prices I listed were, in fact, false.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

billsharpe said:


> I agree that a la carte will be very difficult to introduce. The suppliers don't like it and it would further complicate the cable and satellite providers bills, although these bills are already pretty complicated. But to say it hasn't worked seems incorrect. Where has it been tried?
> 
> Bill


C-Band had it and it worked very well. Despite what some here will tell you the small dish killed C-Band, not a la carte


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

CallMeCoach;3172113 said:


> You're right, I lied. I made it all up. My bill never changed, I was never charged different prices, and those prices I listed were, in fact, false.


You said fees had changed. Come on...either make an attempt or move on.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Might be time to put a fork in this thread.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

242424;3172114 said:


> C-Band had it and it worked very well. Despite what some here will tell you the small dish killed C-Band, not a la carte


C band moved away from a la carte. It didn't kill it. It went bundling. Who ever said a la carte killed BUD?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

CallMeCoach;3172086 said:


> I went through and posted the prices of my bills. Like I said earlier, I'm not going to go through line by line. And I'm surely not going to post a picture of them.
> 
> Well, that's too bad for you. I have a life outside of the television, and there are plenty of other ways to get sports. I can order the internet only packages for NBA and MLB and still save a ton of money in the process.
> 
> First off, I didn't walk away. 2nd, do you always just pay a bill without looking further into it? because I don't. In case you live under a rock and are ignorant, companies try to pull the wool over your eyes all of the time. I have so many examples of companies doing shady things to me to make an extra buck it's ridiculous.


You make me laugh. You assume my lifestyle which is so wrong. Plus the streaming version of nba and MLB locks you out of local games and is inferior in quality.

As for paying bills. Yes. If it doesn't change and if it does it is a dollar or two as in your example, it is not worth my time to ferret it out. I have too much to do and having too much fun to worry over a buck or two a month. I find it sad for those who are self proclaimed bill nazis.


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

CallMeCoach said:


> Dear God, I was just going to ignore this thread and let it die, but Hoosier seems bent on making me show the prices on my bills. So be it. So, here goes. I hope you will atleast shut up when I'm done posting the prices.
> 
> I'll give you 4 months here and show what I mean. Mind you, I added nothing during this time.
> 
> ...


If you're looking for clarification on why your rate has been changing it might be helpful to post the itemized list of each bill so we can see why it changed and try to provide you with some assistance. If you're here just to complain then nothing more is needed, you've been successful at that.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> You make me laugh. You assume my lifestyle which is so wrong. Plus the streaming version of nba and MLB locks you out of local games and is inferior in quality.
> 
> As for paying bills. Yes. If it doesn't change and if it does it is a dollar or two as in your example, it is not worth my time to ferret it out. I have too much to do and having too much fun to worry over a buck or two a month. I find it sad for those who are self proclaimed bill nazis.


So you admit your bill changes? Wow, just wow!


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

pfp said:


> I just love seeing all these posts from people who claim a la carte simply will not work with no proof. All a bunch of sheep buying into, and parroting, the propaganda of the industry that is making huge money off the system they have shoved down our throats.


If there were more money to be made going a la carte then some one would be doing it already. The bottom line is that there is more money to be made by selling packages vs. a la carte. There's your proof, no one needs to buy in to any thing or parrot any thing. Where there's money to be had a service will be provided.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I don't know...I've had my directv bill set up as an automatic payment with my bank for years. Other than the odd PPV, and adjustments for annual increases, I have never seen our bill vary at all in the 11 years we've been Directv customers.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Diana C said:


> I don't know...I've had my directv bill set up as an automatic payment with my bank for years. Other than the odd PPV, and adjustments for annual increases, I have never seen our bill vary at all in the 11 years we've been Directv customers.


Correct. It changes only once a year, unless a customer has signed up for a promotion or ordered something. Otherwise the pricing is constant. Glad to see you have been with D* for 11 years. Thank you.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Satelliteracer said:


> Correct. It changes only once a year, unless a customer has signed up for a promotion or ordered something. Otherwise the pricing is constant. Glad to see you have been with D* for 11 years. Thank you.


Good for her, but not my experience.

#takingmymoneyelsewhere


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

CallMeCoach;3172311 said:


> Good for her, but not my experience.
> 
> #takingmymoneyelsewhere


Ok if you don't want to post every item from your bills...how about just 1 bill?

Most of us that have responded here can probably help figure out what happened, but we need the details.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Justin23 said:


> Ok if you don't want to post every item from your bills...how about just 1 bill?
> 
> Most of us that have responded here can probably help figure out what happened, but we need the details.


Wild guess:
First there was the sports package, then there was a partial charge for the HD extra package, and finally it settled down.

I've only had my service for 10 years, and still have the same program package. Once a year it changes. Along the way my hardware has changed and increased, but like most of us, we knew what was happening.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

veryoldschool;3172327 said:


> Wild guess:
> First there was the sports package, then there was a partial charge for the HD extra package, and finally it settled down.
> 
> I've only had my service for 10 years, and still have the same program package. Once a year it changes. Along the way my hardware has changed and increased, but like most of us, we knew what was happening.


Yeah and I still perplexed with the comment that NFLST was something that he "clearly didn't want".

I think it was some add-ons that were free for a few months then rolled-to-pay...

Hopefully we can get the details.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

Except for once a year price increases and things i have added my bill has been rock solid since 9/98.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

CallMeCoach said:


> And that's nothing like the experience of a movie theater - people are willing to pay extra to go to a theater to watch a movie. A.0 It's exactly what they want B.) The screen, sound, and atmosphere are what draws people in.


I thought it was because they advertise movies like crazy right before they come out. At that point, basically the only way to see the movie is at the theater. That sounds more like supply and demand than the "experience".



CallMeCoach said:


> What? Are you serious? So you're saying theaters should offer every movie ever made? lol - that's what renting and PPV are for. No one would argue they don't like going to amovie theater because no one is playing Howard The Duck


No, he's saying that there is a difference between al a carte and going to the movies. You're not just picking what you want to watch, you're picking something to watch out of their selection. You could not order The Walking Dead al a carte. You would have to order AMC and receive the other programs or shows that come along with it. How narrow does your view have to be on al a carte before you reach the perfect idea?



CallMeCoach said:


> Just go away. I'm not typing out every single line on my bill, and I'm not photocopying it so you can internet stalk me like a weirdo. I just took the time to go through my bills and post the price differences and you still want more. Would you like my SS # too?


Maybe photocopy and blackout your personal information? Granted, that would take an extra minute or two...



CallMeCoach said:


> That's a weak, weak argument. I don't know anyone who goes to the movie to watch things they don't want to watch. They go, pay, and watch when something they want is on.


I've had friends, and I'm guilty myself, that have gone to the movies as a group and watched something they didn't care to see just because it was more of a group outting. Plenty of parents take their children to see movies they don't care to see. So, to me, your point is flawed.



CallMeCoach said:


> Maybe I didn't hear the sales rep say they were (unlikely, since I'm a Nazi about my bills)...


How are you a "bill Nazi" if you can't find the difference between your bills. I would assume a bill Nazi could read the entire bill instead of just looking at the bottom line.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

CallMeCoach said:


> Good for her, but not my experience.
> 
> #takingmymoneyelsewhere


I'd be happy to help you out, maybe a simple screenshot of your bill. The amounts don't change, I know how things work here. The only way they change is if a service was signed up for or a promotion is no longer in effect.

Simple as that, but again happy to help you out but the evidence hasn't been presented yet so it's difficult to provide a solution, explanation, etc. Let us help you out.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

CallMeCoach said:


> #takingmymoneyelsewhere


Is that for twitter?


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

242424 said:


> C-Band had it and it worked very well. Despite what some here will tell you the small dish killed C-Band, not a la carte


Didn't work very well for me. By the time I selected the channels that i wanted it would cost more Ala Carte than if I bought a package that contained those channels. I still have the BUD in the back yard but haven't used it in years.


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

CallMeCoach said:


> But how do we know they won't survive? And if it's quality programming, it will survive. That's capitalism and the free market at its best. If the channel doesn't survive, then obviously not enough people liked it or the content was terrible. Saying it doesn't work is saying it won't work for EVERY channel, but who cares? Someone else will just do it better if there is a market for it. The quality channels will survive, and everyone else will have to have competitive prices and quality content. It's not that hard to comprehend. Some company out there is going to start offering that and pull a whole lot of customers away.
> 
> And the article brought up a great point: we are paying money to watch commercials. You shouldn't have to pay money to watch commercials. Pay money for content should = no advertising like Netflix. If you have to watch an advertisement, then the content should be free like OTA channels.


The bigger part of the problem, is networks won't allow it. Providers have to go through the same bundling issues as customers when dealing with networks. A company could tell Disney they only want it's main Disney channel. Disney will say "No, to get our main channel you must also take channels A, B, and C that we offer".


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

CallMeCoach said:


> And that's nothing like the experience of a movie theater - people are willing to pay extra to go to a theater to watch a movie. A.0 It's exactly what they want B.) The screen, sound, and atmosphere are what draws people in.


There's also the parking, the commercials and coming attractions before the movie starts (why are the better pictures coming next week or next month?), those talking, those texting, and the sound is usually too loud. My recliner at home is much more comfortable than a movie seat.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

billsharpe said:


> There's also the parking, the commercials and coming attractions before the movie starts (why are the better pictures coming next week or next month?), those talking, those texting, and the sound is usually too loud. My recliner at home is much more comfortable than a movie seat.


The grass is always greener... next week?


----------

