# New pricing?



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Anyone heard what or if any price increase is coming next year?


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Always and it will be up.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Drucifer said:


> Always and it will be up.


Of course. I'm just wondering if any Directv insiders here have heard what those increases will be.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The 'other site' has some pricing listed for the new year from D*. But they also note that it is not confirmed, in fact their contact with D*'s PR people has told them they can't release info yet.

That said, unofficially the base subs go up $2-$5/month I think.


----------



## jeffgbailey (Feb 29, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> But they also note that it is not confirmed,


actually it HAS been confirmed


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

If it's on the other site unfortunately based on experience it's not confirmed even if they claim it is until someone else has the info too. Far to much bad info over there time and again. Although with something like this it's a great guess because that's what I'd expect.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

inkahauts said:


> If it's on the other site unfortunately based on experience it's not confirmed even if they claim it is until someone else has the info too. *Far to much bad info over there* time and again. Although with something like this it's a great guess because that's what I'd expect.


Examples?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Just forget it. I see posts like that denigrating the 'other site' from both sites. I ignore them as I've found that not to be the case at all. Do both sites occasionally get something wrong? Yep, nothing new at all about that.

Basically I come here to keep up with D* a bit better and there for the E* coverage. Both sites are valuable and provide good service imo.

Now a question.

I'm with Dish and with the new rate structures proposed, it would be financially in my best interest to switch. But that only takes into account new/returning customer discounts, and a slight edge in favor of D* after the 1st year at the top level I subscribe to in general. I've been getting pretty good ongoing discounts from Dish on the premiums and used to get pretty good ones from Direct, even in the first year of contract. But going back over a few months postings is not showing me how well people are doing these days with Direct with some lesser discounts along the way.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

jeffgbailey said:


> actually it HAS been confirmed


No, Direct's have not been confirmed by Direct. All 3rd party info at this point. I suspect they will be accurate, but you never know.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Examples don't need to be given. It's well known that other site is so biased its not even funny. They announce a price increase about their prized possession "Dish" and they throw a party wishing they could pay even more. 
They suck. 


Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Ahhh, the smell of sour grapes in the afternoon!!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Ahhh, the smell of sour grapes in the afternoon!!


That's the smell of Dish Networks new pricing. The 3 Hopper crowd over there must be loving that 2nd hopper price increase in the past year. I bet Dish is now more expensive then Directv.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

damondlt said:


> That's the smell of Dish Networks new pricing. The 3 Hopper crowd over there must be loving that 2nd hopper price increase in the past year. I bet Dish is now more expensive then Directv. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


I can be depending on configuration and sub. Since it has been so frosty today and my car is covered with ice, I've been playing with the numbers.

At the top level programming with 2 Hoppers with E*, or Genie+HRxx, the pricing is in D*'s favor a bit. And with the 1st year discount I'm seriously considering switching again as it would be in my financial best interest. And to me, my financial best interest is the only one I have to worry about...


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Well my setup with directv is in my Signature.

That cost total $160.02 including taxes. For 11 Tuner setup, 9 recordable and All NY RSNs

Dish with a 2 hopper 3 Joey setup 6 tuners only recordable.
Top 250 and Cinemax, /Protection plan
$169 and no RSNs at all!

$174 if I Add a hopper and drop a Joey , after I pay an Additional $199 upfront.

And with only $30 per month rebates for 12 months, its not even worth switching if I wanted to.
At least when Directv gives you $30 in rebates , they also throw in MLB or NFL ST free for a year.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

In a setup like yours, equipment costs alone would make a switch expensive in upfront costs.

As I showed, mine is a 2 TV setup. I like scripted shows, boxing and golf, so I never notice if RSNs are there or not.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> That said, unofficially the base subs go up $2-$5/month I think.


Wonderful..... FOR THE SAME GARBAGE!!


----------



## Cavicchi (Oct 28, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Well my setup with directv is in my Signature.
> 
> That cost total $160.02 including taxes. For 11 Tuner setup, 9 recordable and All NY RSNs
> 
> ...


Not always, at least not for me.

I don't recall DTV throwing in MLB free for a year. I have seen NFL ST free, but not MLB extra innings.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Pay more attention !!!


I was offered MLB EI, or NFL ST , I picked NFL.


----------



## Cavicchi (Oct 28, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Pay more attention !!!
> 
> I was offered MLB EI, or NFL ST , I picked NFL.


I don't know when you received that offer, but when I joined this month, there were no such offers. I looked at offers this past year and only saw NFL ST free, and that was around August.

Actually, for me it's not that big a deal, because I'd rather be playing than watching. And, I do play both baseball and football, courtesy of my Play Station console


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> I don't know when you received that offer, but when I joined this month, there were no such offers. I looked at offers this past year and only saw NFL ST free, and that was around August.
> 
> Actually, for me it's not that big a deal, because I'd rather be playing than watching. And, I do play both baseball and football, courtesy of my Play Station console


There are many offers, If you want a MLB or NFL ST offer you would need to have signed up during these promos. Like now, you are not going to get MLB offer for 1 its not Baseball Season and 2 they don't even have the 2014 season listed yet.

NFL ST was offered all summer, I believe up until November.

I did 2 refer a friends one in June and one in October, Both Got Free ST.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

This seems like my package is bigger than yours talk, channel package that is


----------



## Cavicchi (Oct 28, 2008)

damondlt said:


> There are many offers, If you want a MLB or NFL ST offer you would need to have signed up during these promos. Like now, you are not going to get MLB offer for 1 its not Baseball Season and 2 they don't even have the 2014 season listed yet.
> 
> NFL ST was offered all summer, I believe up until November.
> 
> I did 2 refer a friends one in June and one in October, Both Got Free ST.


Yes, as I said, I have seen NFL ST free, just haven't seen MLB Extra Innings free. When did you get it free?


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I am betting its going down this year. :rotfl:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Cavicchi said:


> Yes, as I said, I have seen NFL ST free, just haven't seen MLB Extra Innings free. When did you get it free?


I didn't take it, csr offered me one or the other.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Cavicchi (Oct 28, 2008)

damondlt said:


> I didn't take it, csr offered me one or the other. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


Aha! Well, I was also once offered free MLB Extra Innings by the DTV agent, but when I called back, hadn't received a confirmation email, I was told that agent was mistaken--there was no free offer for MLB Extra Innings. Until you get a confirmation email with whatever they say stated in print, I don't believe it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Ok you believe what you want, Directv has offered Free MLB EI in the past for New customers.


----------



## Cavicchi (Oct 28, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Ok you believe what you want, Directv has offered Free MLB EI in the past for New customers.


Oh, I am not saying they never did, just saying not recently. Never go by just what a DTV representative says until you see it posted to your account or in a confirmation email. Call me paranoid, but I've had occasion to justify my paranoia 

Yes, I was all hopped up to join with MLB Extra Innings free until I found out otherwise.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Recently, No, its not baseball season.

March, April, May. Not unheard of.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Here. Right from this Site.

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/203116-mlb-ei-nfl-st-promo/


----------



## Cavicchi (Oct 28, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Recently, No, its not baseball season.
> 
> March, April, May. Not unheard of.


It was earlier this year and no MLB Extra Innings free.



damondlt said:


> Here. Right from this Site.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/203116-mlb-ei-nfl-st-promo/


That was not proven, and I sincerely doubt they offer both at the same time, NFL ST and MLB Extra Innings free.

Isn't it time we dropped this discussion about MLB Extra Innings? I mean, the thread you started is about...something else.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> It was earlier this year and no MLB Extra Innings free.
> 
> That was not proven, and I sincerely doubt they offer both at the same time, NFL ST and MLB Extra Innings free.
> 
> Isn't it time we dropped this discussion about MLB Extra Innings? I mean, the thread you started is about...something else.


Again, you asked, and I didn't start this thread.

You're the one being confrontational because you weren't offer something many people were.
Get over it!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I've done 3 refer a friends since 2012, and Everyone of them Got

Free Premiums for 3 months.
HD Extra Free for 3 months,
$30 rebates for 12 months.
Free NFL ST
Free Genie with up to 3 Clients
Plus $10 off for 10 months for my referral.

That alone would Rule out ever switching to Dish because of a Price increase.


----------



## mikeissurreal (Sep 24, 2013)

I know for a fact Smart Circle reps were able to offer BOTH ST and MLB EI free for new cxs for a brief time in May ( I believe ) for cxs that signed up for the Ultimate package or higer. 

DTV did offer MLB EI free for two or three months around April for cx that signed up for ultimate or higher.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

The price increase each year is usually around 4%, so it depends on what your bill is. Mine will go up about $4 since my monthly is around $100.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

What about Spanish packages? Will they get an increase as well?


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

Dude111 said:


> Wonderful..... FOR THE SAME GARBAGE!!


Why do you pay for GARBAGE?


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I think everything is negotiable. Just look at the various threads on here and other sites. Everyone is offered different things and the list price is not what you have to pay. Just like when you go buy a car, you do not have to pay list price. Heck I haggled down buying tires and an alignment a few days ago. It doesn't hurt to ask.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

This is the CNN article on it, though the pricing was based on what an analyst said.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/24/technology/dish-directv-price-hike/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

So, I'm going to have a discussion with my mother about DirecTV early next year. Here is what I'm looking at and how to replace:
Mythbusters - Possibly purchase in individual episodes. GOogle play has them for $1.99 each
Amazing Race - Over The Air, CBS website
Face/Off - Available through SciFi's website
Ice Road Truckers - Do I really need this show?
Golden Girls - My mom loves this show. I just picked up all seven seasons for $10.76 each on DVD.
I Love Lucy - In process of acquiring all the seasons on DVD
Game of Thrones - Season 1 and 2 on BluRay, Season 3 coming out in February
49ers games - I'm a fair weather fan. Most games are on FTA, two games were on Monday Night Football, one game was on Thursday Night Football, I can watch those at a friends house
I don't blame DirecTV (or Dish) as much as I do the content providers who continually jack up the rates. I'm looking at cutting the cord or doing comparative pricing with the local FiOS provider. If I go OTA only, I would need to have someone install an outdoor antenna, as I am unwilling to risk limb to install an antenna on a two story home.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

That is certainly doable, and even for Mythbusters wouldn't be that expensive if their 2014 season is as few episodes as 2013 was.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Here is the official prices.
http://www.directv.com/businesspackages/feb/2014_Price_Increase.pdf?referrer=https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2613/kw/package%20increase


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

YUCK!


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

studechip said:


> Anyone heard what or if any price increase is coming next year?





lparsons21 said:


> The 'other site' has some pricing listed for the new year from D*. But they also note that it is not confirmed, in fact their contact with D*'s PR people has told them they can't release info yet.
> 
> That said, unofficially the base subs go up $2-$5/month I think.





inkahauts said:


> If it's on the other site unfortunately based on experience it's not confirmed even if they claim it is until someone else has the info too. Far to much bad info over there time and again. Although with something like this it's a great guess because that's what I'd expect.





damondlt said:


> Examples don't need to be given. It's well known that other site is so biased its not even funny. They announce a price increase about their prized possession "Dish" and they throw a party wishing they could pay even more. They suck. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


So as it turns out the haters here are wrong, and the price increases posted "over there" are, in fact, correct!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Maybe I'm more of an optimist than I think, but I look at that and am glad I see no increase to whole home, DVR, HD or HBO.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

At least nice to see no increases in receiver or other fees.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

In addition to HBO, I have Showtime. I guess that's $1 there. Then $3 on top the base package. $4 increase I guess is to be expected these days.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

cypherx said:


> In addition to HBO, I have Showtime. I guess that's $1 there. Then $3 on top the base package. $4 increase I guess is to be expected these days.


I'd think HBO would be considered your first premium, so no $1 increase there for showtime.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> I'd think HBO would be considered your first premium, so no $1 increase there for showtime.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


interesting. I guess it depends the order there are listed on his bill. If showtime is listed first, then there is an increase, if HBO is listed first, no increase.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

peds48 said:


> interesting. I guess it depends the order there are listed on his bill. If showtime is listed first, then there is an increase, if HBO is listed first, no increase.


Wouldn't that mean it would be easy to save a buck? Cancel both, next day reorder them, HBO first.

Since HBO is more, it should be considered the first premium. Though that may be too logical.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

HBO is always first billing.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Thanks for the confirmation Joe!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> I'd think HBO would be considered your first premium, so no $1 increase there for showtime.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Actually, there would be an increase. The $1 is increased on your first NON-HBO premium. If you have just HBO, no increase. If you have Starz and HBO...$1 increase. If you have Showtime, Cinemax, Starz...total of $1 increase. Basically whether you have 1 premium or 5 premiums, the total increase is $1 except if the one premium is HBO.


----------



## dishinitout (Jan 4, 2013)

Anyone know what that Total Choice Mobile is? Will it be a new package or its it existing but unadvertised?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

studechip said:


> So as it turns out the haters here are wrong, and the price increases posted "over there" are, in fact, correct!


Oh do they need another pat on the back, hey let's throw a party.

The I told you so bit, is one of the main reasons I don't miss that place.

Just because something wasn't posted here, doesn't mean any of us didn't already know about it. 

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

damondlt said:


> Oh do they need another pat on the back, hey let's throw a party. The I told you so bit, is one of the main reasons I don't miss that place. Just because something wasn't posted here, doesn't mean any of us didn't already know about it.  Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


Are you claiming that you knew about it before it was posted anywhere?


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Thanks for clarifying that. I suspected that was the case because that is how I read it as well.


Satelliteracer said:


> Actually, there would be an increase. The $1 is increased on your first NON-HBO premium. If you have just HBO, no increase. If you have Starz and HBO...$1 increase. If you have Showtime, Cinemax, Starz...total of $1 increase. Basically whether you have 1 premium or 5 premiums, the total increase is $1 except if the one premium is HBO.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

dishinitout said:


> Anyone know what that Total Choice Mobile is? Will it be a new package or its it existing but unadvertised?


It's a package for RVs.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

RAD said:


> At least nice to see no increases in receiver or other fees.


It would even be nicer if DTV would stop charging customers for HD channels. My family is heading for the low end base channel programming packages and instead use steaming services to make up the difference. Almost tempted to get rid of our DVR's completely to reduce cost.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

jerrylove56 said:


> It would even be nicer if DTV would stop charging customers for HD channels. My family is heading for the low end base channel programming packages and instead use steaming services to make up the difference. Almost tempted to get rid of our DVR's completely to reduce cost.


So how do you handle SD customers? They would feel they are paying for something they don't have, and the sd only customer number is not insignificant.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## flybynyte (Aug 8, 2012)

jerrylove56 said:


> It would even be nicer if DTV would stop charging customers for HD channels. My family is heading for the low end base channel programming packages and instead use steaming services to make up the difference. Almost tempted to get rid of our DVR's completely to reduce cost.


yep, unfortunately they have reached my limit of what i want to pay for tv :nono2: i am going to have to do some research into what changes i can make to my package.


----------



## krusej23 (Dec 27, 2013)

What is Regional Sports Fee .............. Increases $0.63-$1.82/mo? I hadn't seen that before. 

Any reason I wouldn't switch from the retired choice extra package to xtra package?


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

dpeters11 said:


> I'd think HBO would be considered your first premium, so no $1 increase there for showtime.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I initially thought that but then thought to myself that would be too consumer friendly. No way is a for-profit organization like (insert local cable op or satellite provider here) consumer friendly.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

krusej23 said:


> What is Regional Sports Fee .............. Increases $0.63-$1.82/mo? I hadn't seen that before.
> 
> Any reason I wouldn't switch from the retired choice extra package to xtra package?


It's been around since last year. Depends on where you live as you may not be impacted at all. Only certain zip codes are impacted and the amount depends mostly on how many RSNs are served in that zip code area.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

OMG... are they serious?

I currently have CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC @ $71.99 / mo. They are raising that to $75.49 which is a $3.50 increase. That's already a 4.8% increase. On top of that, they are going to double the regional sports fee??? I watch ZERO sports. That's a 7.4% increase!

Also, why is CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC $2 more then XTRA?


----------



## Cavicchi (Oct 28, 2008)

Maybe I'm in the minority, but 4-5 dollars more isn't going to get me upset. They all seem to be upping price around 5 dollars, even Cable. Just think, it's a gallon to a gallon and a half of gas a month


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> Also, why is CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC $2 more then XTRA?


Choice Xtra classic is from the era before the Ultimate package was created as a step between Xtra and Premiere, so it has everything that's in Ultimate minus The Movie Channels, Encores and possibly Sundance.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Cavicchi said:


> Maybe I'm in the minority, but 4-5 dollars more isn't going to get me upset. They all seem to be upping price around 5 dollars, even Cable. Just think, it's a gallon to a gallon and a half of gas a month


LOL...

They raise it $4-5 / mo every year...

At what point would you cancel?


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Maybe I'm more of an optimist than I think, but I look at that and am glad I see no increase to whole home, DVR, HD or HBO.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I agree. If that would happen. I see some of my receivers getting disconnected.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> It's been around since last year. Depends on where you live as you may not be impacted at all. Only certain zip codes are impacted and the amount depends mostly on how many RSNs are served in that zip code area.


This does not affect me in my area. But, if it did. Would we have the option to drop the RSNs?


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

mhayes70 said:


> This does not affect me in my area. But, if it did. Would we have the option to drop the RSNs?


Not unless you downgrade to Entertainment. The thing you have to realize is that DirecTV prices their base packages nationally even though the RSNs people get vary per area, some areas have none, some get over 4. On cable they can just adjust the prices of their base packages locally to reflect this, for DirecTV they would need to have different pricing that changes based on your zip code and county since team territories don't align with DMAs.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> OMG... are they serious?
> 
> I currently have CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC @ $71.99 / mo. They are raising that to $75.49 which is a $3.50 increase. That's already a 4.8% increase. On top of that, they are going to double the regional sports fee??? I watch ZERO sports. That's a 7.4% increase!
> 
> Also, why is CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC $2 more then XTRA?


CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC has more channels than XTRA, higher programming costs.

The RSN fee is totally dependent on where you live.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

KyL416 said:


> Not unless you downgrade to Entertainment. The thing you have to realize is that DirecTV prices their base packages nationally even though the RSNs people get vary per area, some areas have none, some get over 4. On cable they can just adjust the prices of their base packages locally to reflect this, for DirecTV they would need to have different pricing that changes based on your zip code and county since team territories don't align with DMAs.


Yes, I realize that. But, I am taking about the extra RSN fee for area's that have several RSNs. Like LA.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

KyL416 said:


> Not unless you downgrade to Entertainment. The thing you have to realize is that DirecTV prices their base packages nationally even though the RSNs people get vary per area, some areas have none, some get over 4. On cable they can just adjust the prices of their base packages locally to reflect this, for DirecTV they would need to have different pricing that changes based on your zip code and county since team territories don't align with DMAs.


I believe even the cable companies have this type of charge now. I know AT&T, Verizon, DIRECTV and others do to address the costs of RSNs in the local market. You are correct that some markets have 4 RSNs, like New York and there is a tremendous cost associated with that, well over the $3.50 that DIRECTV will pass on to customers in those particular zip codes.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

mhayes70 said:


> This does not affect me in my area. But, if it did. Would we have the option to drop the RSNs?


No, the RSNs have to be made available in most packages where most of the eyeballs are and cannot be separated.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> OMG... are they serious?
> 
> I currently have CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC @ $71.99 / mo. They are raising that to $75.49 which is a $3.50 increase. That's already a 4.8% increase. On top of that, they are going to double the regional sports fee??? I watch ZERO sports. That's a 7.4% increase!
> 
> Also, why is CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC $2 more then XTRA?


I ended up switching off classic, none of the channels were anything I would miss personally.

Sent from my Z10 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

mhayes70 said:


> Yes, I realize that. But, I am taking about the extra RSN fee for area's that have several RSNs. Like LA.


That's what the fee is for, to reflect the additional cost of the multiple RSNs. You don't see this on cable because they just adjust the price of the base packages locally for the affected systems.


----------



## Cavicchi (Oct 28, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> LOL...
> 
> They raise it $4-5 / mo every year...
> 
> At what point would you cancel?


Cable also raises their cost every year. I don't know at what cost I would cancel, but I do know five dollars won't make me do it, nor would it make me complain. A five dollar increase today is not much, just like a five dollar raise in salary


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I ended up switching off classic, none of the channels were anything I would miss personally. Sent from my Z10 using DBSTalk mobile app


Yeah, I might do that too... only a $2/mo savings though.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Cavicchi said:


> Cable also raises their cost every year. I don't know at what cost I would cancel, but I do know five dollars won't make me do it, nor would it make me complain. A five dollar increase today is not much, just like a five dollar raise in salary


So you are cool with a $5/mo increase EVERY year?

I can tell you, I have been with DirecTV since 2002 and my bill has increased about 180%. My salary has not. Neither have any of my other bills. I have everything the exact same as I did in 2002 except for upgrading to an HD DVR and the HD package. The HD package has a sticker price of $10/mo. What justifies the other $60 - $70 a month? If you are going to say "they added a bunch of HD channels", I'd have to say thats already been accounted for in the $10/mo. Even if HD was $30/mo, my bill is still out of wack.

I have no movie channels and none of the silly bells & whistles like MRV & PP.

I'd say a reasonable / fair price for Xtra + HD + 1 standalone DVR is in the $70 to $80 ballpark. Not the $110 ballpark.

I don't know what your bill is now, but would you cancel if it hit $150/mo? $200/mo? $500/mo?


----------



## Cavicchi (Oct 28, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> So you are cool with a $5/mo increase EVERY year?
> 
> I can tell you, I have been with DirecTV since 2002 and my bill has increased about 180%. My salary has not. Neither have any of my other bills. I have everything the exact same as I did in 2002 except for upgrading to an HD DVR and the HD package. The HD package has a sticker price of $10/mo. What justifies the other $60 - $70 a month? If you are going to say "they added a bunch of HD channels", I'd have to say thats already been accounted for in the $10/mo. Even if HD was $30/mo, my bill is still out of wack.
> 
> ...


My cable company is also coming with an increase, and like who isn't? Asking me how much before I cancel seems silly. DTV is cheaper than my Cable company. When my Cable company becomes cheaper and offers equal service, then I would consider cancelling DTV. Until then, I don't make a fuss about a 4-5 dollar increase.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

I think comparing DirecTV price increases to salary increases for a 10 year period is an apples to oranges comparison, and I do not think they are holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to stay. For those who need more than just OTA free TV, DirecTV is a business looking to make money and they sell satellite television. Those satellites are not cheap.

I know if I switched to cable, I would be subject to 11 DVR fees every month, and along with the programming, it would be a stupid move. I still get my DVR service free with my grandfathered premier, or I would have already probably downgraded to a much lower package years ago.

As with the increase, it comes to $6.31/month for me including tax. After seeing this yet another $5 programming increase, I just dropped my THR22, which will save me $11.56/month or $138.72 this year (receiver + TiVo fee + tax). Net savings after everything-------$63.00. They will do another increase in 2015 to absorb this drop in revenue and the cycle will continue, but I will not drop DirecTV for years to come.

What's funny is a couple years ago our electric utility was pushing all of us on how to save money by using efficient bulbs, timers, etc. to lower our electric bills. Two years later, the utility submitted a request to the State Public Service Commission for a rate increase because revenue was down due to people not using as much electricity as in years past. Boom.....our bills went up 10%. Investor owned companies want to make money.


----------



## gaperrine (Dec 8, 2002)

From DIRECTV's price increase announcement:

In 2014, the programming fees we pay to the owners of these television channels will increase about 8%, but DIRECTV is adjusting the average prices you pay by only 3.7%—less than half of that amount.
------------------------------

The price increase announcement implies that DIRECTV is absorbing 4.3% of their increased costs. This would be true if programming fees accounted for 100% of the bill. What percentage of a DIRECTV bill goes to programming costs?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

gaperrine said:


> From DIRECTV's price increase announcement:
> 
> In 2014, the programming fees we pay to the owners of these television channels will increase about 8%, but DIRECTV is adjusting the average prices you pay by only 3.7%-less than half of that amount.
> ------------------------------
> ...


Sure It is 100% true. They are absorbing that extra increase themselves. They aren't passing on the total increase they will be paying out, so how is that not true then? They can absorb it because they can reduce their margins slightly, granted because of the way its set up their margins will not decrease by the same % as their eating of the increase by any stretch. But the % of the INCREEASE they are eating is absolutely spot on, assuming that they are telling us the right % for programming fees increase in the first place.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> It's been around since last year. Depends on where you live as you may not be impacted at all. Only certain zip codes are impacted and the amount depends mostly on how many RSNs are served in that zip code area.


I cant wait to see what happens when everyone in the sec areas get an increase because of the sec channel, and what happens to LA when we get the stupid dodgers channel, and if we ever get the [email protected] channels. Just getting ridiculous.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gaperrine said:


> From DIRECTV's price increase announcement:
> 
> In 2014, the programming fees we pay to the owners of these television channels will increase about 8%, but DIRECTV is adjusting the average prices you pay by only 3.7%-less than half of that amount.
> ------------------------------
> ...


I think they are absorbing more than that, as it cost money to maintain a fleet of satellites, a fully staffed company along with real state and utilities...


----------



## gaperrine (Dec 8, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> Sure It is 100% true. They are absorbing that extra increase themselves. They aren't passing on the total increase they will be paying out, so how is that not true then? They can absorb it because they can reduce their margins slightly, granted because of the way its set up their margins will not decrease by the same % as their eating of the increase by any stretch. But the % of the INCREEASE they are eating is absolutely spot on, assuming that they are telling us the right % for programming fees increase in the first place.


DIRECTV is implying that a bill of $100 will go up only $3.70 instead of $8.00 if they had passed on the full amount of their increased costs.

If programming costs accounted for 50% of the total billed amount, on a bill of $100 DIRECTV's increased cost would be 8% of $50, $4. My bill would go up 3.7% of $100, $3.70. I was wondering what actual percentage of the total bill goes toward programming costs.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

I had a discussion with my mother about this issue. Unfortunately, completely cutting out cable television is still a non-starter... she would just increase my rent. I am allowed to compare pricing.

I'm currently a subscriber to the Choice Xtra Classic with two HD-DVRs and a SD receiver. I'm comparing the channel lineup of Surewest Cable Digital Choice verses downgrading to the DirecTV Entertainment package. At this point, under the promotional pricing, I would be saving a lot of money over DirecTV.

Of course, if I was a brand new customer, I would be able to get the Entertainment package for 24 months for $52. No Internet through. Hmmmm....

So, the plan is to explain to mom that I'm downgrading to a lower package, and see if we can live with that package. Then, speak with the retention department at DirecTV. My two year term is almost up anyways from adding a DVR, and I have been a loyal customer since 2003.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> Sure It is 100% true. They are absorbing that extra increase themselves. They aren't passing on the total increase they will be paying out, so how is that not true then? They can absorb it because they can reduce their margins slightly, granted because of the way its set up their margins will not decrease by the same % as their eating of the increase by any stretch. But the % of the INCREEASE they are eating is absolutely spot on, assuming that they are telling us the right % for programming fees increase in the first place.


Agree.

The bottom line on this topic is that CONTENT PRICING is driving up the cost to ALL SERVICE PROVIDERS.

Sure, there can be a new special teaser promo rate to entice folks to various service providers (a loss leader to get new subscribers), but as was the case last year, the year before, and the years before that - one thing ALL services have to contend with is the continuous rising prices of the original content providers. That's where you can see any greed.

ESPN, DISNEY, and the RSN's are 3 of the largest "package channel" content providers that have the most inflated per-channel costs of all. Why do they get away with it - because people are willing to pay those prices.

If and when ala carte pricing ever comes...some of those channels will be the most severely affected - because their high rates will be exposed and plenty of people simply will avoid them.

In the mean time...until something changes in the industry that is revolutionary, annual price increases will continue.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> From DIRECTV's price increase announcement:
> 
> In 2014, the programming fees we pay to the owners of these television channels will increase about 8%, but DIRECTV is adjusting the average prices you pay by only 3.7%-less than half of that amount.
> ------------------------------
> ...


Yea , because they want to convince you they aren't the bad guys, while profits are still in the hundreds of millions.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

damondlt said:


> Yea , because they want to convince you they aren't the bad guys, while profits are still in the hundreds of millions.


Informed people know who "the bad guys" are - the content providers (not the content delivery services like sat or cable).

Their rates have *exponentially* gone up the past 4-7 years, in comparison to the nominal 3-4% rates.

ESPN and Disney are among the most drastic rate-increase content sources. Talk about profits and price-gouging...

Details here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/03/20/can-espn-keep-raising-prices-with-competition-heating-up/


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Informed people know who "the bad guys" are - the content providers (not the content delivery services like sat or cable).
> 
> Their rates have *exponentially* gone up the past 4-7 years, in comparison to the nominal 3-4% rates.
> 
> ...


I guess the really informed population are the ones that aren't giving any of these companies money.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Informed people know who "the bad guys" are - the content providers (not the content delivery services like sat or cable).
> 
> Their rates have *exponentially* gone up the past 4-7 years, in comparison to the nominal 3-4% rates.
> 
> ...


When Directv starts LOSING money then I'll hear your claim. Untill then Directv is Still increasing rates to make more profit or maintain the same profit even after the networks raise prices.

We the customers are the ones losing money in this process. Not Directv or any network.

Its amazing how Directv profits are up Every quarter before and after a Price increase, because the Networks are so hard on them LOL.

Gimmie a break! TV providers and Networks I'm sorry the biggest racket there is. I agree with other member here. Directv in 10 years have highest increased percentage then any household utility, Tax ,Insurance or any Bill in my house. And I own 4 houses and about 13 cars and employ 11 people. And Building currently a new business, that also comes with permits and inspections that cost barely more then 10 years ago..

Sure I oil products are through the roof, But TV isn't much better.

I run a business and have for many years, I lower my rates because of Rising material cost in order to stay competitive.
Does that mean I Lower my Employees pay in order to make the same profit.
NO I DON'T!


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Well now I am really glad there's no Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia. We have no RSN's in the western Philly DMA and I am glad!

As for the top 3, I need Disney for my daughter but I could give a rats about ESPN.

Local cable company has more HD but they are an all digital system so the bandwidth is there. Plus they are privately owned so they can add stuff and not have to worry about pleasing shareholders. If it wasn't for their crappy equipment I would be with them right now.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Also I don't want to hear TV is optional.
Everyone knows TV is just as important as Cell phone, Electric or any other device we have now days.

If it wasn't the Providers and Networks wouldn't have us 100 million US citizens (TV subscribers) by the balls!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> When Directv starts LOSING money then I'll hear your claim. Untill then Directv is Still increasing rates to make more profit or maintain the same profit even after the networks raise prices.
> 
> We the customers are the ones losing money in this process. Not Directv or any network.
> 
> ...


You run a company but you're knocking another company that's doing exactly what they're supposed to do...make money.

I guess you don't try to be a profitable company.

This comparison of TV to utilities that people keep doing is ridiculous. Pay TV is a luxury and you don't need it, you want it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Well now I am really glad there's no Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia. We have no RSN's in the western Philly DMA and I am glad!
> 
> As for the top 3, I need Disney for my daughter but I could give a rats about ESPN.
> 
> Local cable company has more HD but they are an all digital system so the bandwidth is there. Plus they are privately owned so they can add stuff and not have to worry about pleasing shareholders. If it wasn't for their crappy equipment I would be with them right now.


I agree. On both accounts!.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Also I don't want to hear TV is optional.
> Everyone knows TV is just as important as Cell phone, Electric or any other device we have now days.
> 
> If it wasn't the Providers and Networks wouldn't have us 100 million US citizens (TV subscribers) by the balls!


That's absurd. Watching pay tv isn't important. It's entertainment.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> You run a company but you're knocking another company that's doing exactly what they're supposed to do...make money.
> 
> I guess you don't try to be a profitable company.


Guess not, I guess I can Live on $300,000 or less a year.

And I don't have to raise my price 180% in 10 years to do it!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

cypherx said:


> As for the top 3, I need Disney for my daughter but I could give a rats about ESPN.


Your daughter doesn't NEED Disney. She would be great without it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> That's absurd. Watching pay tv isn't important. It's entertainment.


I would say vast Majority of Americans would not agree with you.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

damondlt said:


> *Also I don't want to hear TV is optional.
> Everyone knows* TV is just as important as Cell phone, Electric or any other device we have now days.
> 
> If it wasn't the Providers and Networks wouldn't have us 100 million US citizens (TV subscribers) by the balls!





damondlt said:


> I would say* vast Majority* of Americans would not agree with you.


So which is it, everybody or only the vast majority?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

damondlt said:


> ... I have to finish a Building a new Business so I can *Higher* more people so they can make money ...


Do you lower them afterward or just leave them hanging?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Do you lower them afterward or just leave them hanging?


 :rotfl: !rolling


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Do you lower them afterward or just leave them hanging?


Sorry HIRE 
Talk about grasping.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

On a percentage basis, I believe DTV's profit margins are very much in line with most major companies, and even trail a bunch. I don't have an issue with companies making a profit, it's how capitalism functions. Especially if that profit is in line with the norms.

Content costs are the driver here. One poster said rates have gone up 180% in 10 years, I can assure you content costs have gone up 3X or more in that time period. 

People want more and more stuff like more HD, 4K, streaming, second screen apps, faster boxes, more DVR storage, ability to record more shows at one time, VOD library, portability, etc, etc. All that stuff costs money to develop, not all of it has a direct return on the investment. 

I guess where I'm coming from is that television rates have gone up a bunch in 10 years, but I also look at what television was like in 2003 vs 2013 and what I get for that rate increase is night and day different. Exponential jump in my experience, offering etc.

Just my two cents.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I'll let solid signal know, I won't be needing a 30 TV DIRECTV Set up, because sports bars according to some are not require. LOL. DIRECTV I'm sure would agree. 

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> On a percentage basis, I believe DTV's profit margins are very much in line with most major companies, and even trail a bunch. I don't have an issue with companies making a profit, it's how capitalism functions. Especially if that profit is in line with the norms. Content costs are the driver here. One poster said rates have gone up 180% in 10 years, I can assure you content costs have gone up 3X or more in that time period. People want more and more stuff like more HD, 4K, streaming, second screen apps, faster boxes, more DVR storage, ability to record more shows at one time, VOD library, portability, etc, etc. All that stuff costs money to develop, not all of it has a direct return on the investment. I guess where I'm coming from is that television rates have gone up a bunch in 10 years, but I also look at what television was like in 2003 vs 2013 and what I get for that rate increase is night and day different. Exponential jump in my experience, offering etc. Just my two cents.


But directv is still profiting more then they were in 2003. You think that's the case for many Americans What good is all that if no one can afford it or wants to buy it. You guys think if directv took a couple years off from a price increase it would hurt their bottom dollar? Just because I can afford it doesn't. Mean I should have accept it with open arms.

You and I both know, If the networks submit a bill for $10,million dollars Directv is going to say to its customers its 20.

So a $3 increase is Already an Extra $60 million dallars not including Latin America.

Really?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> But directv is still profiting more then they were in 2003. You think that's the case for many Americans What good is all that if no one can afford it or wants to buy it. You guys think if directv took a couple years off from a price increase it would hurt their bottom dollar? Just because I can afford it doesn't. Mean I should have accept it with open arms. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


Obviously people can afford it... subscription numbers continue growing.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Check again!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I'm not aware of anyone who enjoys paying higher prices.

The problem is that many people don't realize the primary source of the higher prices...and misdirect their frustration in the wrong direction.

I also don't believe that most people have struggles with companies making a profit - that's why they are in business after all. But when content providers (like ESPN and Disney as some of the largest price-increase sources) reap triple digit profits...the pricing model is broken.

The only way I see this cycle ending is either legislated access to ala carte (and supply/demand takes care of itself) or else people simply backtrack their content packages (in large populations of subscribers). In other words - vote with the wallet.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

fireponcoal said:


> I guess the really informed population are the ones that aren't giving any of these companies money.


You watch no ESPN, ABC, Disney or RSNs? Really?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Amazing that September 2012 vs September 2013 Directv Profit increased $134 Million.

Wow they are really struggling!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

damondlt said:


> Amazing that September 2012 vs September 2013 Directv Profit increased $134 Million.
> 
> Wow they are really struggling!


Content provider revenues have grown in BILLIONS in just the past 2-3 years...not just millions.

I see the real substance and main factual point continues to be missed.

Bloomberg reported this for just 2012 (one revenue stream and one year alone):



> Profit from cable television, which includes ESPN and the Disney Channel, increased 25 percent $967 million on higher affiliate fees and advertising gains at the children's channel.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Amazing that September 2012 vs September 2013 Directv Profit increased $134 Million.
> 
> Wow they are really struggling!


So what? They're supposed to grow.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> So what? They're supposed to grow.


So what? Really? Growing .

NO its Called Profiting!

This is why we have government bailouts.

Let me know when Directv stops growing, then maybe our price will come down!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Content provider revenues have grown in BILLIONS in just the past 2-3 years...not just millions.
> 
> I see the real substance and main factual point continues to be missed.
> 
> Bloomberg reported this for just 2012 (one revenue stream and one year alone):


Guess Directv and Dish should have better negotiators then since TV is only Luxury anyway the customer won't be upset.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

damondlt said:


> So what? Really? Growing .
> 
> NO its Called Profiting!
> 
> ...


Feel free to read post 128.

All the information you seek lives there...including how the industry really works in terms of revenue and profit distribution.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Feel free to read post 128.
> 
> All the information you seek lives there...including how the industry really works in terms of revenue and profit distribution.


Oh well in that case. Sorry Directv , I feel bad that your operation cost have gone up, and I'm willing to just keep giving you more money without question.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Sorry HIRE Talk about grasping. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


I think you missed the point of my post. It was a funny ... no grasping involved.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I think you missed the point of my post. It was a funny ... no grasping involved.


Yea I know, I just forgot to put a :grin:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Just so you guys are aware, regardless of the contract agreement. Customers Base their decision on weather they are going to sign up for 2 years on the Presented Price.

Yes now we all know Directv can raise prices when ever they want, BUT then by any normal standard that should also VOID the contract.
Since May of 2012 I would be paying $31 per month more then my Contract Stated I would be paying by May of 2014.

No RSN fees were presented, MRV went up $5, Protection Plan was $5.99 not $7.99, HBO is now $19 Base packages up twice.

Sorry but that's unacceptable! If I did that to my customers I would be sued! No doubt in my mind.

And I'm going to Give Directv a Commercial account.

Yea Blue Ridge cable went up sure, But in the past 5 years alone, Directv is Now in the same ball park.
I remember in 2007 , $140 was a Hell of a 5 room Directv HD system. Sure no whole home, but what expense is passed to Directv monthly for allowing your system to communicate?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> But directv is still profiting more then they were in 2003. You think that's the case for many Americans What good is all that if no one can afford it or wants to buy it. You guys think if directv took a couple years off from a price increase it would hurt their bottom dollar? Just because I can afford it doesn't. Mean I should have accept it with open arms.
> 
> You and I both know, If the networks submit a bill for $10,million dollars Directv is going to say to its customers its 20.
> 
> ...


They'd better be more profitable over time! And them freezing prices to us would put them in an untenable cost squeeze.

Cost increases to them haven't been lied about. And the increase in revenue to them via a rate increase to us does indeed work out as you say. But there's no point to the math, is there?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> Just so you guys are aware, regardless of the contract agreement. Customers Base their decision on weather they are going to sign up for 2 years on the Presented Price.
> 
> Yes now we all know Directv can raise prices when ever they want, BUT then by any normal standard that should also VOID the contract.


No, that's not a "standard" in this and related industries. (phone, sat radio, internet pricing, etc.)


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> No, that's not a "standard" in this and related industries. (phone, sat radio, internet pricing, etc.)


That's the Problem.

Just to add though, My Att Moble share plan went down $10
Also my Internet with Blue ridge is the same price as it was in 2009.
My satellite radio only went up $1 since 2011
My electric goes up and down since its Variable rates.
was 6.8 cents now 7.2 but has been is High as 10.5 cents Clearly it drops.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

The contract specifically states that prices are not locked in for the duration of the contract, unless it's a specified new customer price lock deal. 

Sent from my Z10 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

damondlt said:


> When Directv starts LOSING money then I'll hear your claim. Untill then Directv is Still increasing rates to make more profit or maintain the same profit even after the networks raise prices.
> 
> We the customers are the ones losing money in this process. Not Directv or any network.
> 
> ...


Programming costs are not the only thing that they pay though. No one ever considers that the people at DirecTV want a raise each year too and I don't hear anyone complaining when a new DVR or new features come out. Those things cost a lot of money. I have worked at my job for 9 years now and if it wasn't for promotions, I think there as been no increase in pay in at least 6 of those years. Am I happy about the price increase no, do I blame DirecTV no I don't. I pay them for what I want. I blame the people forcing them to charge more for what it is I want.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Programming costs are not the only thing that they pay though. No one ever considers that the people at DirecTV want a raise each year too and I don't hear anyone complaining when a new DVR or new features come out. Those things cost a lot of money. I have worked at my job for 9 years now and if it wasn't for promotions, I think there as been no increase in pay in at least 6 of those years. Am I happy about the price increase no, do I blame DirecTV no I don't. I pay them for what I want. I blame the people forcing them to charge more for what it is I want.


The problem is you need to start blaming Directv.

When I hand my Financial advisor $25,000 to invest, and he loses $30,000 who should I yell at ? Wall street?

When I pay Directv $275 a month and they want more, do I yell at the networks whom I don't pay to provide me services offered at a presented price?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

damondlt said:


> The problem is you need to start blaming Directv.
> 
> When I hand my Financial advisor $25,000 to invest, and he loses $30,000 who should I yell at ? Wall street?
> 
> When I pay Directv $275 a month and they want more, do I yell at the networks whom I don't pay to provide me services offered at a presented price?


I guess until we have a year where content costs don't go up, we wont know if DirecTV raises prices anyway. I am hoping when its said and done with the Aereo suite, there will be alternatives for DirecTV on local channelsl. It would be nice to not have that expense going up constantly and possibly losing local channels. What I do find funny is that you are complaining so much about DirecTV but plan to open a business account with them. Sounds like a sports bar or restaurant you are planning to open. With the costs for DirecTV, why do you feel compelled to chose them? I guess having the sports needed to attract business is worth the expense you feel will provide you with a profit. You must feel that you will be more profitable with DirecTV then without. Why keep griping? In the end if the real problem is fixed, DirecTV would be a lot less likely to raise prices every year.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

You keep looking the other way. Directv is never going to put pressure on these networks, That's their job!

I can almost guarantee you Facebook will be blown up by people that are tired of the increases.
Here sure its going to be limited here, because all the Yes Men here have members Terrified to state anything negative about Directv.

Us customers can't take down network, Directv can, so its time to start.

I may give Dish a lot of crap, But atleast they take a Stand. And Never get any support from any other provider in the process, which tell me its all about MONEY with Directv and many other big providers.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> You keep looking the other way. Directv is never going to put pressure on these networks, That's their job!
> 
> I can almost guarantee you Facebook will be blown up by people that are tired of the increases.
> Here sure its going to be limited here, because all the Yes Men here have members Terrified to state anything negative about Directv.
> ...


DTV puts pressure on these networks all the time. Pac 12 is not on DTV. Weather Channel, just read the latest. Viacom was taken down for 8 days. There are ones you never hear about that go to the brink, extensions are given, continue to go to the brink and DTV wins concessions like lower costs. This isn't a zero sum game and believe me DTV tries to contain those costs as much as possible.

Of course when these networks do come down or are not renewed, another segment of the customer base is upset because the content isn't there. It's a tough spot to be in, someone is always going to be upset one way or the other.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> I guess until we have a year where content costs don't go up, we wont know if DirecTV raises prices anyway. I am hoping when its said and done with the Aereo suite, there will be alternatives for DirecTV on local channelsl. It would be nice to not have that expense going up constantly and possibly losing local channels. What I do find funny is that you are complaining so much about DirecTV but plan to open a business account with them. Sounds like a sports bar or restaurant you are planning to open. With the costs for DirecTV, why do you feel compelled to chose them? I guess having the sports needed to attract business is worth the expense you feel will provide you with a profit. You must feel that you will be more profitable with DirecTV then without. Why keep griping? In the end if the real problem is fixed, DirecTV would be a lot less likely to raise prices every year.


Why feel compelled to choose Directv? I guess when you already have 4 personal accounts, you want to keep something accustomed too. Just my option.

Blue ridge Has Sports too, and With Only Needing HD receivers and Not DVRs, Cable is right there with price. So don't Pat them on the back just yet!


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Check again!


Satellite did grow subscriptions in 2013, both DISH and DIRECTV. So did TELCO. Only cable had a net loss.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> DTV puts pressure on these networks all the time. Pac 12 is not on DTV. Weather Channel, just read the latest. Viacom was taken down for 8 days. There are ones you never hear about that go to the brink, extensions are given, continue to go to the brink and DTV wins concessions like lower costs. This isn't a zero sum game and believe me DTV tries to contain those costs as much as possible.
> 
> Of course when these networks do come down or are not renewed, another segment of the customer base is upset because the content isn't there. It's a tough spot to be in, someone is always going to be upset one way or the other.


Pressure and Caving are two Different things.

Directv 8 days wow, who really had the upper hand ?
Pac 12, yea well that division sucks. that's a no brainer.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> But directv is still profiting more then they were in 2003. You think that's the case for many Americans What good is all that if no one can afford it or wants to buy it. You guys think if directv took a couple years off from a price increase it would hurt their bottom dollar? Just because I can afford it doesn't. Mean I should have accept it with open arms.
> 
> You and I both know, If the networks submit a bill for $10,million dollars Directv is going to say to its customers its 20.
> 
> ...


On percentage basis, very little change, some years slightly more some years less.

Yes, we all know DIRECTV and Target and BMW and Sirius XM and FILL IN THE BLANK are going to pay X for goods and charge Y to their customers. That is because those companies are assuming the risk of inventories, delivery \ distribution, customer support, etc. That markup goes to cover all those costs, the profit margins aren't going up despite a product that is infinitely more complex today than it was even a few years ago...that requires human capital (technicians, call center agents, etc) as well as engineering, distribution, etc capital.

I'm glad your electricity rates are staying flat, wish that was the case out here. Satellite radio costs are up and of course in absolute dollars they won't be the same, but their content costs in absolute dollars are extremely small....no comparison. Your cell phone costs are down, mine are up. Used to be $15 unlimited data plan. Now the cheapest is $20, no longer unlimited and as I add family members it keeps going up....that's part of the deal. More services, more data = more cost to the company and more costs passed down to the consumer.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I blame both Directv 51% and Networks 49%

The Reason if Directv is going to keep paying it, then we are going to have to keep paying it.

I deal with Directv, I don't deal with any Networks.
If I could
I can tell you right now I would have about 25 channels thats it!

And then I could ***** at the source.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Pressure and Caving are two Different things.Directv 8 days wow, who really had the upper hand ?Pac 12, yea well that division sucks. that's a no brainer.


Pac 12 is rated as the #2 conference in college football, ahead of the Big Ten, ACC, Big 12. Hardly a division <sic> that sucks.

I think most experts will tell you DIRECTV won that battle with Viacom and saved costs as a result. We'll see what happens with Weather Channel and others. As I stated, there are others you never hear about that the other side "caves" to use your verbiage, meaning that costs are contained. Point is, there is a balance. You want them to take channels down, which they have at times. There is a consequence for doing so....some customers will leave because price isn't the issue to them that it is to you, and they want all those channels. DTV, Dish, TWC, FiOS, etc have to serve many different demands of customers, not all of which are congruous. In fact, many times they are polar opposites.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

We need heat, food etc but we do not need to pay for TV. We can go to OTA for free but most people forgot about that. If the cost is more than you want to pay then dont pay it and drop your TV service.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> The Reason if Directv is going to keep paying it, then we are going to have to keep paying it.


You don't have to keep paying for DirecTV - you and those who are that unhappy can cancel. Instead, many just complain constantly. Maybe I'm weird because I don't willingly pay to someone I'm that unhappy with if I don't have to.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I blame both Directv 51% and Networks 49%The Reason if Directv is going to keep paying it, then we are going to have to keep paying it.I deal with Directv, I don't deal with any Networks.If I couldI can tell you right now I would have about 25 channels thats it!And then I could ***** at the source.


Who do you think doesn't allow you to purchase the channels individually? If you answer that question, I'm guessing your 49% number would increase dramatically.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Who do you think doesn't allow you to purchase the channels individually? If you answer that question, I'm guessing your 49% number would increase dramatically.


I agree with you. but still doesn't change who I have to deal with now.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Laxguy said:


> They'd better be more profitable over time!


This is a very curious mentality. I worked at a large corporation that wanted to shut down a department because its revenue was not growing faster than inflation. The only problem was that it was a "cash cow" - it literally funded more than the entire rest of the organization.

There is nothing wrong with a company making the same profit year after year. If I got a paycheck of $100,000,000, and it only tracked with inflation over time, I'm not going to say, "Gee, I'm not getting more every year, this has got to stop."

Right now, there is a battle underway, as more and more people are looking to drop pay TV and go with the ultimate in a la carte - streaming. And as more people stream, this puts more pressure on companies that have contracts to keep their numbers up. Since ESPN can't force the number of customers to increase, their only choice is to raise the prices they charge the cable/satellite companies for carriage. Which then leads to more people cutting the cord, or cutting packages. And around and around we go. Eventually, the fracturing of programming (what was once on ESPN is now spread between BTN, regional sports networks, CBS Sports Network, NBC Sports Network, FS1, etc.) will have to stop and the whole industry will contract. But it will be painful and not every company and/or channel is going to survive.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

I just went online and changed my programming package from Choice Xtra Classic ($72 per month) to Entertainment ($55 per month now, $57 after the increase). I do not subscribe to the premiums. We'll give it a few days, then I'll call the retention department.



damondlt said:


> Also I don't want to hear TV is optional.
> Everyone knows TV is just as important as Cell phone, Electric or any other device we have now days.
> 
> If it wasn't the Providers and Networks wouldn't have us 100 million US citizens (TV subscribers) by the balls!


I disagree with you. I sat down a few days ago, and figured out what was essential and what isn't should something like losing my current job (which I earn good money for). (I get good money). In terms of ranking:
Rent and electricity
Gas and oil changes, car insurance (car is paid for) to get to work or job interviews
Auto club membership
Cell phone (don't have a land line, cell phone also has Internet access, and in a pinch, can tether laptop)
Gym membership (I need to go more often)
Internet access (WiFi access at a public library, friend's home, or Starbucks)
Toastmasters club
Pay TV Access (would be the first to go, have plenty of DVDs and BluRays)
That's my reality and my priorities. I also recognize the challenges of running a business -- I'm a tech with a business major degree.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Also I don't want to hear TV is optional.
> Everyone knows TV is just as important as Cell phone, Electric or any other device we have now days.
> 
> If it wasn't the Providers and Networks wouldn't have us 100 million US citizens (TV subscribers) by the balls!


They do not have us by theballs, you can get news weather and network programing free OTA. I know I am wicked old but thats how we did it in the 70s and the same stations are still broadcasting today for free in HD.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> They do not have us by theballs, you can get news weather and network programing free OTA. I know I am wicked old but thats how we did it in the 70s and the same stations are still broadcasting today for free in HD.


OTA is not an option for MANY MANY Americans.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> This is a very curious mentality. I worked at a large corporation that wanted to shut down a department because its revenue was not growing faster than inflation. The only problem was that it was a "cash cow" - it literally funded more than the entire rest of the organization.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a company making the same profit year after year. If I got a paycheck of $100,000,000, and it only tracked with inflation over time, I'm not going to say, "Gee, I'm not getting more every year, this has got to stop."
> 
> Right now, there is a battle underway, as more and more people are looking to drop pay TV and go with the ultimate in a la carte - streaming. And as more people stream, this puts more pressure on companies that have contracts to keep their numbers up. Since ESPN can't force the number of customers to increase, their only choice is to raise the prices they charge the cable/satellite companies for carriage. Which then leads to more people cutting the cord, or cutting packages. And around and around we go. Eventually, the fracturing of programming (what was once on ESPN is now spread between BTN, regional sports networks, CBS Sports Network, NBC Sports Network, FS1, etc.) will have to stop and the whole industry will contract. But it will be painful and not every company and/or channel is going to survive.


Agree.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

The only way those of you who are complaining constantly about costs is to cut it. Cut the cord. Cancel DIRECTV, cable, FIOS. And, then, please, stop with the B+M'ing.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> OTA is not an option for MANY MANY Americans.


Nielsen has reported in Q1 2013, there were 11.2 million broadcast-only homes. The company puts the number of TV homes at 115M. As well, there are just over 100M pay-TV households. This leaves 15M TV homes that don't use pay-TV. Nielsen accounts for some of this difference with the new "Zero-TV" category which it puts at 5M, 75% of which own a TV. The rest, 11M, are broadcast-only households. So, MANY MANY Americans can and do have the option.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

damondlt said:


> OTA is not an option for MANY MANY Americans.


Who would that be? There there a lot of TV stations out there and that is how most got TV in the past. Most if not all stations are still broadcasting. The cable company's have done a great job in making you feel you need them. Until sattlite most rural areas had no other options. If you feel you have no choice then that's OK but if you get layed off you may think different, I know I did.


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

i guess i'll have to increase what i charge my customers an extra $10/month


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

PCampbell said:


> Who would that be? There there a lot of TV stations out there and that is how most got TV in the past. Most if not all stations are still broadcasting. The cable company's have done a great job in making you feel you need them. Until sattlite most rural areas had no other options. If you feel you have no choice then that's OK but if you get layed off you may think different, I know I did.


He's talking about people like me that live out in the country and are too far out to receive good OTA signals. Most Americans can get OTA but don't forget about those of us that can't.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Anybody that's not happy with these increases you should speak with retention and see what they can do, Might be good amount of bill credits or not much, but you never know until you try, If that doesn't work than you can try later when the increase are near, Or you can cancel or suspend service and try other alternative options(Comcast,OTA,Roku,TiVo or whatever cable service you have in your area) The key to a successful credit is good payment history and years of service, but also if you don't have current credits in your account. Don't threaten to cancel unless you are doing it. Research all your options.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Laxguy said:


> The only way those of you who are complaining constantly about costs is to cut it. Cut the cord. Cancel DIRECTV, cable, FIOS. And, then, please, stop with the B+M'ing.


That is what I would prefer to do, sir, but external factors are saying no.



acostapimps said:


> Anybody that's not happy with these increases you should speak with retention and see what they can do, (text deleted) Don't threaten to cancel unless you are doing it. Research all your options.


My gunpowder is dry. I know what I want, and as you guys are seeing, I am taking the necessary steps now.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I blame both Directv 51% and Networks 49%
> 
> The Reason if Directv is going to keep paying it, then we are going to have to keep paying it.
> 
> ...


Why do you stay with Directv then? If you are that upset why don't you go to another provider or cut the cord?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mhayes70 said:


> Why do you stay with Directv then? If you are that upset why don't you go to another provider or cut the cord?


that would be to "easy"


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Amazing that September 2012 vs September 2013 Directv Profit increased $134 Million.
> 
> Wow they are really struggling!


How much of that increase and beyond came from its Latin America division and not the us division?

Each needs to be profitable in their own and ill bet they make a heck of a lot less money per sub now than they did in 2003. Heck this company was underwater for what almost a decade before it even became profitable.

And do you know how much of that profit will be used to keep the company going and expanding in more technology (new satelites) and such in the first place? It's not so cut an dry. In have no problem thinking DIRECTV isn't increase their profit line with these rate hikes. Not after CBS and others are gaining to 2 a month in fees. That's 20 million in new expenses every month for the one station!

I hate the increases but the only thing DIRECTV can try and do is split the packages more.

DIRECTV hasn't gone up nearly as much as rights fees for sports and sports salaries have gone up. It's all related.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

More people can get over the air than cable I bet. Same with over the air and land based Internet. 

This all just sucks because companies keep outbidding each other or sorts and pay entertainers to much money and it all ends up on our bills. And we want the same stuff or the same amount as it was score but to any want to get paid 100 times what people used to get paid. (Sports!!!)


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

linuspbmo said:


> He's talking about people like me that live out in the country and are too far out to receive good OTA signals. Most Americans can get OTA but don't forget about those of us that can't.


As a percentage of households, that's almost 0%. Full-powered broadcast television reaches at least 60 miles, and most Americans live within 60 miles of a transmitter farm. And for those who are outside of that area, there are options like Dish's Smart Pack, which for $20 gives you your locals and a smattering of extra channels. In SD, of course, but we're talking "necessity", not "luxury."

Most people who believe they can't get OTA simply believe they can't because they either never tried or they tried one of those plug-in-the-wall "whole house" antenna and got nothing. The digital era with modern tuners make it far easier to get a perfect signal than ever before. I had my antenna strapped to the bottom of my deck, less than 1' off the ground, and was receiving a perfect signal from stations 35+ miles away.

If you need to figure out what is a necessity, look at how people survive in the third world. If they don't have it, it isn't a necessity.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> As a percentage of households, that's almost 0%. Full-powered broadcast television reaches at least 60 miles, and most Americans live within 60 miles of a transmitter farm. And for those who are outside of that area, there are options like Dish's Smart Pack, which for $20 gives you your locals and a smattering of extra channels. In SD, of course, but we're talking "necessity", not "luxury."
> 
> Most people who believe they can't get OTA simply believe they can't because they either never tried or they tried one of those plug-in-the-wall "whole house" antenna and got nothing. The digital era with modern tuners make it far easier to get a perfect signal than ever before. I had my antenna strapped to the bottom of my deck, less than 1' off the ground, and was receiving a perfect signal from stations 35+ miles away.


You obviously have no clue.
Go to TVfool.com type in 18445 and tell me what you come up with. And we are less then 40 miles to transmitters.

Not everyone lives on top of a mountain, city or plains states.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

And you guys that claim "just switch"
Guess you forgot about ETFs.

Anyone with a brain already figured that paying an ETF and starting with New provider may not be a cost saving measure.

What I will do, is what many suggested, Not take anymore offers from Directv , Dial back my programming.
And look at other options for my commercial account and see how that pans out.

More then likely I was Going to do MLB EI , and Center Ice.

NFL ST yea, I think I'll stay away from that.
I'll Get Eagles,Giants,Steelers,Jets,Sunday Night, Monday Night, Thursday Night games without it.
I'm sure my business will be just fine without it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

This thread has really deteriorated.

Shame...it's a valid topic to discuss.

However a select poster or two continue to dwell in the science fiction world of *how they think* pricing works i_*nstead of how it actually works *_(also called the blame game). The topic has been analyzed, reviewed, debated, and discussed for years...and revives about the same time each year during price change season. It's a proven fact that the biggest price change impact is derived from the content manufacturers/providers. Satellite and cable companies simply pass on a (much smaller) proportionate share to the consumer.

This is virtually how this most recent conversation has been going..


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> This is virtually how this most recent conversation has been going..


that dog is making dizzy :barf:


----------



## coconut13 (Apr 14, 2013)

damondlt said:


> OTA is not an option for MANY MANY Americans.


I disagree with this statement. From the dawn of TV (late 1940's) until the early 1980's you had to have an antenna to watch TV. Most Americans in any part of the country did. People have gotten lazy and uninformed on how to get broadcast TV. To this day it is still possible to receive broadcast TV free. Americans did from 1940-1980 with no problem. You just have to make the effort.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Prior to the digital changeover, ota was more doable than it is now. I think that was damondlt's point.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I think we did this last year.

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/201033-new-rates-hbo-increase-it-pays-to-complain/


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Prior to the digital changeover, ota was more doable than it is now. I think that was damondlt's point.


Yea Digital is much harder to get in the Valleys, and in the boonies.

I posted my location a few post back feel free to check with TVfool.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> This thread has really deteriorated.
> 
> Shame...it's a valid topic to discuss.


So how do you think this should be discussed?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

damondlt said:


> And you guys that claim "just switch"
> Guess you forgot about ETFs.
> 
> Anyone with a brain already figured that paying an ETF and starting with New provider may not be a cost saving measure.
> ...


Yeah why wouldn't it be fine without Sunday Ticket. only 3 of those 4 teams wont be going to the playoffs. Guess you customers like watching losers.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Yeah why wouldn't it be fine without Sunday Ticket. only 3 of those 4 teams wont be going to the playoffs. Guess you customers like watching losers.


Guess so!


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Lions fans have no other option than watching losers. Hope we do better next year.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> You obviously have no clue.
> Go to TVfool.com type in 18445 and tell me what you come up with. And we are less then 40 miles to transmitters.
> 
> Not everyone lives on top of a mountain, city or plains states.


Ok, I popped it in and it says you should be able to get a ABC, NBC, FOX, The CW, and a fe other independent with a roof antenna.

I don't see the issue.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Yea Digital is much harder to get in the Valleys, and in the boonies.
> 
> I posted my location a few post back feel free to check with TVfool.


I tend to agree. In the analog days, you could watch a channel even if it was fading in and out, or had other channels overriding it, and still be able to make out what you were watching. Now with digital, you either get a prisine picture, or its totally gone. Makes it a lot harder for viewers on the fringe.

Even in those cases, if you WANTED to spend the money i.e. a 75' free standing radio tower, stacked high gain yagi antennas, low noise amp, RG11 downfeed cable...then chances are, you could get the stations...but who wants to spend $1000 to get "free" TV. Back in those days, the "cable" company, was just a communuty antenna. They would put the antenna up on a big hill, or tower, and deliver the free signal to the home, for the cost of operating their system. Its coming back to that, with AERO (think thats the name of it) if all the lawsuits against them fail.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

damondlt said:


> So how do you think this should be discussed?


Like adults.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Like adults.


there are very few of those here..... :rolling:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Ok, I popped it in and it says you should be able to get a ABC, NBC, FOX, The CW, and a fe other independent with a roof antenna. I don't see the issue.


No you can't. Roof top ant. Gets you CW, Ion,Qubo NBC on a good day.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> I tend to agree. In the analog days, you could watch a channel even if it was fading in and out, or had other channels overriding it, and still be able to make out what you were watching. Now with digital, you either get a prisine picture, or its totally gone. Makes it a lot harder for viewers on the fringe.
> 
> Even in those cases, if you WANTED to spend the money i.e. a 75' free standing radio tower, stacked high gain yagi antennas, low noise amp, RG11 downfeed cable...then chances are, you could get the stations...but who wants to spend $1000 to get "free" TV. Back in those days, the "cable" company, was just a communuty antenna. They would put the antenna up on a big hill, or tower, and deliver the free signal to the home, for the cost of operating their system. Its coming back to that, with AERO (think thats the name of it) if all the lawsuits against them fail.


Aero is the big hope to keeping our rates from going up for over the air stations IMHO.

I can see DIRECTV going back to making locals a separate add on package. In fact if I where them I'd do that now! Show you how much your free over the air channels are charging you!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Like adults.


Like adults means you could handle criticism. It's obviously not the case.

Might as well not even post Directv having a price increase then.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> This thread has really deteriorated.
> 
> Shame...it's a valid topic to discuss.
> 
> ...


Thank you


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> So how do you think this should be discussed?


I guess what I don't understand is that you clearly know what is driving this, but you want to take it out on the distributor. Not sure why. I also would like to know what profit is ok by you? What is acceptable to you (and others)? Not absolute dollars, because that is not the proper way to look at it, I'm talking about percentage basis so the company can still reinvest in technology, people, etc.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> I guess what I don't understand is that you clearly know what is driving this, but you want to take it out on the distributor. Not sure why. I also would like to know what profit is ok by you? What is acceptable to you (and others)? Not absolute dollars, because that is not the proper way to look at it, I'm talking about percentage basis so the company can still reinvest in technology, people, etc.


First off no I clearly don't know what's driving the prices up. And neither does anyone else. It's the same BS as always, it's never directvs fault, it's never the networks fault.

Acceptable profit ? its all acceptable.

What not is claiming Networks, have raised the rates well over the 4% increase, But yet claiming Directv is eating that cost for us , when every quarter they make more Net profit then the last quarter..

That's shows me that Directv clearly isn't eating any costs.
Its obvious our "claimed Minor" $3 increase more then covers the increases of the New expenses and more.

So don't sit there and tell me Directv isn't just as much at fault as the networks.

When Directvs Profit is the same in the year end from 2013 to 2014 is the same then well talk about.

I want to see submitted Contracts from networks to Directv before you point the finger at only the networks.
Don't even get me Started on NFL ST either.
$3000 for the 2014 season was the quote I got. Don't tell me either that the money Directv invest into ST doesn't have any effect on all 20 million customers.

But when Profits are still rising by Hundreds of Millions over one Quarter from the Next. I fail to see the need other then an extra money grab for an increase.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> First off no I clearly don't know what's driving the prices up. And neither does anyone else. It's the same BS as always, it's never directvs fault, it's never the networks fault. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


I'm pretty sure Satelliteracer knows what is driving them. He's explained things quite well.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> I'm pretty sure Satelliteracer knows what is driving them. He's explained things quite well.


Count on it.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> First off no I clearly don't know what's driving the prices up. And neither does anyone else. It's the same BS as always, it's never directvs fault, it's never the networks fault. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


Actually, I know exactly what's driving it and the discussion has been had many times. Don't need to take my word for it, look at industry analysis, look at quarterly reports required by law, etc, etc.

Programming costs are the absolute biggest driver and it isn't really close. Wall Street Journal did a solid piece a year or so ago how Time Warner Cable's programming costs are up 32% the last 4 years, yet their subscription costs only rose 16%. DIRECTV is no different, or DISH, or AT&T.

Retrans rates have increased close to 600%...that is not a typo...the costs of carrying local channels are up 600% to providers since 2010. That's only 3 years ago.

The content makers are spending billions on sports rights, original series, etc and they pass those costs on to distributors who pass those costs on to subscribers.

A decent article here http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-tv-programming-costs-are-661360

This is why I would like to know what profit margin is acceptable to you.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I added more to my previous post.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

But I still have some unanswered Questions

What does it cost Directv to Provide MRV on a monthly basis, that warrants a $5 charge?
Is that a money grab? 
Same receivers perform the same functions so why can't I decide how I want the equipment in my house to communicate?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Also My Gap between Cable and Directv with Internet went from $28 in 2012 to only $.90. when 2014 Prices hit.

Sure no MRV, but at this point it seems people might as well go back to non DVRs.
Oh wait that's right you can't downgrade your equipment without paying more money and Signing another commitment. :down:


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

damondlt said:


> That's the Problem.
> 
> Just to add though, My Att Moble share plan went down $10
> Also my Internet with Blue ridge is the same price as it was in 2009.
> ...


So you switched to the new value plan for ATT then? Or did you put no contract phones on it, the only price decrease that has been released since the mobile share plan came out was the difference in the cost of the device being added - one price for subsidized phones and another for no commitment phones.

Glad you have a "variable rate" mine has been going up every year, although not as bad as the sewer service that averages 10 to 15 dollar increase at least twice a year


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

damondlt said:


> And you guys that claim "just switch"
> Guess you forgot about ETFs.
> 
> Anyone with a brain already figured that paying an ETF and starting with New provider may not be a cost saving measure.
> ...


I am always amazed when someone plays the "etf" card, personally if I am unhappy with a company the etf would be a minor thing to get out of rather then have to keep paying the company I detest every month.

If you run a bar you just might be surprised.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Just a reminder to keep it civil. Discuss the topic and not each other. It's not directed at anyone in particular, just a friendly reminder.

Mike


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Also My Gap between Cable and Directv with Internet went from $28 in 2012 to only $.90. when 2014 Prices hit.
> 
> Sure no MRV, but at this point it seems people might as well go back to non DVRs.
> Oh wait that's right you can't downgrade your equipment without paying more money and Signing another commitment. :down:


Is your cable bill bundled? The margins for cable are different when you factor in broadband or phone service because they make huge margins on those packages and are willing to take less on video. DTV and DISH don't have that option to have another unit absorb the hit.

The other question I would ask is the comparison apples to apples in terms of hardware, etc. Typically DTV might be a touch more expensive on the programming but cheaper on the hardware costs so it tends to even out or come darn close. Hard for me to answer you question without knowing the details, but I am happy to try.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> Retrans rates have increased close to 600%...that is not a typo...the costs of carrying local channels are up 600% to providers since 2010. That's only 3 years ago.


So why not make locals optional, like they used to be, and let those of us who dont want them, to drop them?


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> First off no I clearly don't know what's driving the prices up. And neither does anyone else. It's the same BS as always, it's never directvs fault, it's never the networks fault.
> 
> Acceptable profit ? its all acceptable.
> 
> ...


I disagree on several fronts. DTV is eating many of the programming costs. They have gone up between 8% and 10% per year that last 3 or 4 years. That doesn't mean DTV can't still be profitable and it also doesn't mean DTV can't find other revenue sources, but it makes the programming cost issue no less truthful. To maintain profit margins, DTV has only a few choices at their disposal

1) Raise programming rates to match their programming costs....unlikely due to the extreme price increases that would require so attempt to clawback some of it
2) Find other revenue sources outside of programming that can make up for that programming delta and not have to be shared with the programming creators
3) Find other revenue sources outside of television (Home security, broadband, etc) or through other markets (Latin America, etc)
4) None of the above and continue to lose profit margins, lay off workers, don't innovate, etc

DTV has opted for 1, 2 and 3.

And again, I've asked about operating profit margin percentage. In 2011 it was 17.00%. In 2012 it was 17.10%...almost identical. We'll see where 2013 ends up but 2013 operating profit margin was at 16.5% through the first 3 quarters. http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=804340%C2 You keep using absolute numbers of "hundreds of millions over each quarter" which is an incorrect way of looking at it.

I'm glad you want to see submitted contracts, but you know that no company can do that, but what you can do is look at the expense lines for DTV, DISH, TWC, AT&T, Verizon, Charter, Comcast, etc and you can see their programming costs are going up every year at a high percentage. You don't have to see the contracts for that, you can just look at the earnings statements that each company is required to file.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> So why not make locals optional, like they used to be, and let those of us who dont want them, to drop them?


I can't answer that....maybe that's in the future maybe not, I just don't know. I'm not in a position to make that decision, I'm merely stating what has been publicly stated to the press. In the "old days" (by which I mean only a few years ago), broadcasters relied for most of their revenue on ad sales. Then the economy went belly up and they (broadcasters) went to the distributors and demanded increases to carry their channels, despite the fact they are free for anyone with an antenna. That's why you see so many disputes with so many distributors on local channels.

Some good info here

http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/directv-ceo-well-have-to-raise-tv-prices-again-in-2014-1200667322/


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

damondlt said:


> You obviously have no clue.
> Go to TVfool.com type in 18445 and tell me what you come up with. And we are less then 40 miles to transmitters.
> 
> Not everyone lives on top of a mountain, city or plains states.


Actually, I have a really good clue and significant experience with reception issues. I've had station engineers in my area contact *me* with questions. One told me my results were "impossible", but couldn't deny what I was getting. They actually changed the power of their transmitter to see what the result would be and I was their test subject.

What I see for your reception is a difficult, but not impossible, situation. You'll need to get the best rooftop antenna out there and a very high gain preamplifier, but you should be able to get everything listed as -95 or better on TVFool. An average antenna (almost anything made by Winegard or Channel Master qualifies as "average") or a poor preamp will sink you. I receive stations that are weaker than the ones listed for your zip code on a daily basis. A tower would make it a slam dunk for you, and if you cut DirecTV's average $100/month bill, your payback period is under a year.

What you are assuming is that you live in a very high population area. You don't. Your situation is not typical.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Davenlr said:


> So why not make locals optional, like they used to be, and let those of us who dont want them, to drop them?


Because in most major markets, CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox affiliates are owned and operated by the networks themselves, and they insist on putting the language in the contract that says in effect that if you want to carry e.g. ESPN or Disney, you have to offer ABC in your lowest package. And they can put the language in contracts with non-O&O affiliates that they must demand similar terms for retransmission consent. As copyright holders, they have a government-guaranteed exclusive right to sell (or not see) their products as they choose.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> Actually, there would be an increase. The $1 is increased on your first NON-HBO premium. If you have just HBO, no increase. If you have Starz and HBO...$1 increase. If you have Showtime, Cinemax, Starz...total of $1 increase. Basically whether you have 1 premium or 5 premiums, the total increase is $1 except if the one premium is HBO.


So as of February 6, 2014 when the new pricing goes into effect would the following be the correct pricing for premiums?

Any single premium (except HBO) $13.99 mo.
HBO only $17.99 mo.
2 Premiums (no HBO) $25 mo.
2 Premiums (with HBO) $30 mo.
3 Premiums (no HBO) $35 mo.
3 Premiums (with HBO) $40 mo.
4 Premiums (no HBO) $43 mo.
4 Premiums (with HBO) $48 mo.
All 5 Premiums $55 mo.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> I am always amazed when someone plays the "etf" card, personally if I am unhappy with a company the etf would be a minor thing to get out of rather then have to keep paying the company I detest every month.
> 
> If you run a bar you just might be surprised.


Who said I was unhappy, or even that they are detested? 
Do I want a price increase again, No.
What normal minded person would be.

And ETF card is a very valid complaint/factor to a person whom it forced to stay because of it.

If I didn't have an ETF, would I switch? maybe I think most people would go with something they could get that's better financial wise.

If I'm a customer I have every right to complain about things that changed while under contract. 
Just like some of claim to be happy over everything they do.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> So you switched to the new value plan for ATT then? Or did you put no contract phones on it, the only price decrease that has been released since the mobile share plan came out was the difference in the cost of the device being added - one price for subsidized phones and another for no commitment phones.
> 
> Glad you have a "variable rate" mine has been going up every year, although not as bad as the sewer service that averages 10 to 15 dollar increase at least twice a year


It's the new mobile share plan. Not prepaid.

And yes Electric rates are all variable. I suggest looking at your bill detail.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

coolman302003 said:


> So as of February 6, 2014 when the new pricing goes into effect would the following be the correct pricing for premiums?
> 
> Any single premium (except HBO) $13.99 mo.
> HBO only $17.99 mo.
> ...


By the sounds of it, I would say that's correct. If the 2nd premium is $11 which it sounds like it is. And HBO is 17.99 and not 18.99

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Who said I was unhappy, or even that they are detested? Do I want a price increase again, No. What normal minded person would be. And ETF card is a very valid complaint/factor to a person whom it forced to stay because of it. If I didn't have an ETF, would I switch? maybe I think most people would go with something they could get that's better financial wise. If I'm a customer I have every right to complain about things that changed while under contract. Just like some of claim to be happy over everything they do. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


Just personally do not stay with a company that I am unhappy with, etf or not, I don't equate a etf with a requirement to stay. In 90 percent of the cases it is cheaper to pay the etf and leave then to continue the contract till it is at end of term. Assumptions are not a good thing, never said I am "happy" with everything they do, have had disagreements with them over the decades but price increases are not one of the subjects and have never been. It is the cost of doing business and business are in it to make money, even not for profit ones


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

damondlt said:


> It's the new mobile share plan. Not prepaid. And yes Electric rates are all variable. I suggest looking at your bill detail. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


Interesting comment - just looked at their billing rates - not there

Never said prepaid - this one - http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/data-plans.html#fbid=d9tMQGgvsRG


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> I'm glad you want to see submitted contracts, but you know that no company can do that, but what you can do is look at the expense lines for DTV, DISH, TWC, AT&T, Verizon, Charter, Comcast, etc and you can see their programming costs are going up every year at a high percentage. You don't have to see the contracts for that, you can just look at the earnings statements that each company is required to file.


For one, DirectTV isn't eating any costs. The customers are eating the cost. 
And absolute numbers are fine, you just don't want people to use them because they provide valid proof to my claim.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Interesting comment - just looked at their billing rates - not there Never said prepaid - this one - http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/data-plans.html#fbid=d9tMQGgvsRG


Yep log into your account, and sign up for the new mobile share plan. The 2 GIG plan on 3 phones was $185, it's now $175 they raised the base pack $5 and lowered the add on shared phones 5 each. And now the 4th phone can be added for only $25 if you don't take a free upgrade.

But yea I'm lying.
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=25145&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=37330


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> Just personally do not stay with a company that I am unhappy with, etf or not, I don't equate a etf with a requirement to stay. In 90 percent of the cases it is cheaper to pay the etf and leave then to continue the contract till it is at end of term. Assumptions are not a good thing, never said I am "happy" with everything they do, *have had disagreements with them over the decades but price increases are not one of the subjects and have never been*. It is the cost of doing business and business are in it to make money, even not for profit ones


Again who ever said they were unhappy? Unhappy about another price increase YES
OK since you had other issues with Directv those are valid, but because my complaint is about price and yours isn't that makes mine invalid.

Because after all Business is business.

WOW


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Who said I was unhappy, or even that they are detested? Do I want a price increase again, No. What normal minded person would be. And ETF card is a very valid complaint/factor to a person whom it forced to stay because of it. If I didn't have an ETF, would I switch? maybe I think most people would go with something they could get that's better financial wise. If I'm a customer I have every right to complain about things that changed while under contract. Just like some of claim to be happy over everything they do. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


The ETF is certainly one consideration as you try to decide to switch, downgrade sub level or eat a new price increase.

But ETF is certainly NOT the only consideration. For example, I can save significant money by switching from E* to D* even including one-year's worth of ETF and paying for a 2nd HRxx with a Genie at a nearly same level of service. Depending on how I compare, it is a savings of anywhere between $20-30 per month in the first year, and even a little in the 2nd and 3rd year because of the come-back or new customer deals.

But I then have to consider how much actual 'value' I place on keeping my current movie/show archives and knowing that I'll be able to keep them even if I change equipment around a bit with Dish. That's a hard number to come up with, but it is a factor. And then I have to place a 'value' on the relative superiority of the equipment between the two, another difficult number to come up with.

From strictly a $$$ standpoint, switching makes the most sense, but there are other factors to consider.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

100% agree


----------



## stickywicket (Jan 26, 2006)

100% agree.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

damondlt said:


> By the sounds of it, I would say that's correct. If the 2nd premium is $11 which it sounds like it is. And HBO is 17.99 and not 18.99


Current premium pricing is as follows:

_Order HBO for $17.99 per mo. or Starz, Showtime, Cinemax or Sports Pack for the regular price of $12.99 per mo. and get your second premium channel for only $11.01 per mo., your third for $10 per mo., your fourth for $8 per mo., and your fifth for $7 per mo. (Please note: HBO cannot be discounted)._

However when the new prices go into effect the regular price of Starz, Sho, MAX & Sports Pack will be $13.99 per mo. however the price increase states no increase to HBO or the additional premiums when subscribing to more then one.

So if one has HBO & any other premium you would think that Watch More Save More would be as follows 17.99 + 11.01 = $29 however since the premiums increase $1 it has to add up to $30 so I guess the billing is $12.01 for the 2nd premium when HBO is part of the bundle? And then there is no change to billing for the 3rd, 4th and 5th premiums?

Because if you had Cinemax & Starz when new pricing goes into effect it would be 13.99 + 11.01 = $25 which would add $1 increase to the current pricing.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

coolman302003 said:


> So as of February 6, 2014 when the new pricing goes into effect would the following be the correct pricing for premiums?
> 
> Any single premium (except HBO) $13.99 mo.
> HBO only $17.99 mo.
> ...


Yup, that is correct


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> Yup, that is correct


Thank you for confirming sir!


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> For one, DirectTV isn't eating any costs. The customers are eating the cost. And absolute numbers are fine, you just don't want people to use them because they provide valid proof to my claim. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


I don't want people to use them because when you use absolute numbers they are not indexed properly to a baseline.

If I had a business that made $100 million in profit annually on $1 billion in revenue, that might sound like I'm profiteering to an extreme.

If another business made $10 million in profit annually on $50 million in revenue but only the $10 million was talked about, people might get the idea that $10 million is just fine, even though as a percentage the second example is far different than the first. That is the danger of using absolute numbers without context and why percentages should be used.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

As a former financial analyst, I could agree more....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> For one, DirectTV isn't eating any costs.


"Any" is a bad word ... are you claiming that DirecTV is not eating one penny of the price increases and that they are passing every penny of price increases on to their customers? Every single penny?

Assume DirecTV's costs are going up $11 and they raise your bill $10. That would be an example of DirecTV eating some of the price increase. Sure their profits go up a little over time ... but they keep adding customers and (even better) retain customers who end up paying full rate for their programming. The biggest "price increase" comes when the introductory price expires. Even without the annual increase.



damondlt said:


> And absolute numbers are fine, you just don't want people to use them because they provide valid proof to my claim.


Your claim so you are responsible to offer proof.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Proof James ? Go look at the Quarterly reports.
And your days late to the party so I'm not getting into this again just so you feel like your winning an argument.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> I can't answer that....maybe that's in the future maybe not, I just don't know. I'm not in a position to make that decision, I'm merely stating what has been publicly stated to the press. In the "old days" (by which I mean only a few years ago), broadcasters relied for most of their revenue on ad sales. Then the economy went belly up and they (broadcasters) went to the distributors and demanded increases to carry their channels, despite the fact they are free for anyone with an antenna. That's why you see so many disputes with so many distributors on local channels.
> 
> Some good info here
> 
> http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/directv-ceo-well-have-to-raise-tv-prices-again-in-2014-1200667322/


Well, Comcast (Xfinity) has figured out the solution, which I dont like.... They started adding a line item to the bill for "Local channel fee" of $1.50 per month on my bill, to cover the increase, yet wont allow me to drop the locals. I certainly hope DirecTv does not follow that route.

I understand the economics of it all, but I really am getting tired of having to pay for stuff I never watch. I really miss those C band packages where you could get "News channels" and "Sports channels" but not buy "entertainment channels" or "movie channels" or "music channels". Id be 100% happy with just all the sports channels, and news/weather channels. I NEVER watch the networks, or any of the reality tv channels. I dont mind bundling channels together, its just not logical the way its done now.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Two things you can count on every year, your going to have a birthday and your satellite or cable bill is going to increase. Just a thing we have to live with.


----------



## JohnVT (Jan 30, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> Well, Comcast (Xfinity) has figured out the solution, which I dont like.... They started adding a line item to the bill for "Local channel fee" of $1.50 per month on my bill, to cover the increase, yet wont allow me to drop the locals. I certainly hope DirecTv does not follow that route.


Actually, DirecTV did this a long time ago... when locals first became available they were a $3 add-on option. Then at some point, the locals package was no longer optional, and $3 was added to every package price (ok, both these things didn't happen simultaneously, but they have both happened). Now locals are part of the package prices, with no information about how much its actual charge is.


----------



## gaperrine (Dec 8, 2002)

Satelliteracer said:


> I don't want people to use them because when you use absolute numbers they are not indexed properly to a baseline.
> 
> If I had a business that made $100 million in profit annually on $1 billion in revenue, that might sound like I'm profiteering to an extreme.
> 
> If another business made $10 million in profit annually on $50 million in revenue but only the $10 million was talked about, people might get the idea that $10 million is just fine, even though as a percentage the second example is far different than the first. That is the danger of using absolute numbers without context and why percentages should be used.


There is also a danger when using percentages incorrectly. DIRECTV uses percentages of two completely different numbers to show that they are passing less than 50% of their increased programming costs to their customers. I really doubt that the absolute numbers of their increased programming costs are anywhere near double the increased fees they are collecting from their customers. They wouldn't be in business very long if they only charged their customers half of their expenses.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Proof James ? Go look at the Quarterly reports.
> And your days late to the party so I'm not getting into this again just so you feel like your winning an argument.


I looked before I posted. DirecTV has made a profit off of their customers for more than a decade. For the past few years that profit has been more than $10 per month per subscriber. *Nothing new.* Perhaps now that the ARPU is closer to $100 than $85 customers are noticing DirecTV's cut?

Proof? Go look on the Internet. Vague references to proof seem to be in vogue.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> I looked before I posted. DirecTV has made a profit off of their customers for more than a decade. For the past few years that profit has been more than $10 per month per subscriber. *Nothing new.* Perhaps now that the ARPU is closer to $100 than $85 customers are noticing DirecTV's cut?
> 
> Proof? Go look on the Internet. Vague references to proof seem to be in vogue.


Not from me....


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Davenlr said:


> Well, Comcast (Xfinity) has figured out the solution, which I dont like.... They started adding a line item to the bill for "Local channel fee" of $1.50 per month on my bill, to cover the increase, yet wont allow me to drop the locals. I certainly hope DirecTv does not follow that route.


That seems politically motivated, and probably a smart move on their part. If DIRECTV does that, it doesn't mean your bill will go up on account of breaking that out as a separate line item.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> That seems politically motivated, and probably a smart move on their part. If DIRECTV does that, it doesn't mean your bill will go up on account of breaking that out as a separate line item.


I'd expect a "locals fee" to be handled the same way as the RSN fee. It would be added in markets where DirecTV felt it was needed and adjusted based on a balance of what stations in that market were charging and trying to remain competitive.

I'd be VERY surprised if the core package price dropped when a "locals fee" was introduced (the packages including RSNs did not drop in price when that fee was introduced). And in today's marketplace where channels demand inclusion in certain tiers (eg: "deliver our channel to all of your customers or you can't carry our channel") I can't see locals becoming an optional service.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

While programming costs are a significant part of DirecTV's liabilities, it is not 100%. So the argument that "our programming costs are going up 20%, but we're only raising your rates 15%" equates to DirecTV absorbing some of the cost is a bit off. The cost of building and launching a new satellite, the local antenna farms and satellite uplinks for LiL, electrical costs, marketing costs, etc. are all part of their liabilities that do *not* go up with a programming cost hike.

If James is correct and the actual profit/subscriber has remained relatively flat for the last decade, that is a significant fact that has to be considered. It indicates that total costs have risen equal to price hikes over the period in question, even if some costs have gone down while others have gone up.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

...And there might be a bit of wage expense in there, too.....


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> I'd expect a "locals fee" to be handled the same way as the RSN fee. It would be added in markets where DirecTV felt it was needed and adjusted based on a balance of what stations in that market were charging and trying to remain competitive.
> 
> I'd be VERY surprised if the core package price dropped when a "locals fee" was introduced (the packages including RSNs did not drop in price when that fee was introduced). And in today's marketplace where channels demand inclusion in certain tiers (eg: "deliver our channel to all of your customers or you can't carry our channel") I can't see locals becoming an optional service.


Not suggesting that fees will go up or down, or that one would have a choice in dumping locals because they'd be a separate line item. Kinda like all the fees and taxes one sees on one's phone or gas or electric bill. It'd be a political statement, and make things a tad more transparent.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Laxguy said:


> Not suggesting that fees will go up or down, or that one would have a choice in dumping locals because they'd be a separate line item. Kinda like all the fees and taxes one sees on one's phone or gas or electric bill. It'd be a political statement, and make things a tad more transparent.


I'm not sure what the objective of it would be, other than to mollify customers who are upset at their bill going up.

What I would love to see is a truly transparent bill that would look something like this:

Disney Contractual Bundle: (List of included channels)........$25
Viacom Contractual Bundle: (List of included channels).........$15
Fox Contractual Bundle: (List of included channels)............$30
etc. etc.
DirecTV service fee..............................$10

Since locals are tied to the pay channels in contract negotiations, there's no point in not listing ABC under Disney, CBS under Viacom, etc. If customers saw the price hikes, and could say, "You know, I hate paying so much a month, but if all I'm really paying DirecTV for their services is $10, then they're not the problem here." Unfortunately, one of the terms in almost every contract is that the terms not be disclosed. DirecTV could, I suppose, make a "mistake" and put a spreadsheet on the wrong side of their firewall long enough for the press to pick it up.

But my biggest beef with DirecTV really is with DirecTV itself. It is their policy of "receiver ignorance" which declares that an HR21-24 are identical, and the HR34/44 are identical, and being unable to provide specific models to customers who have a specific request. Paying their "advanced receiver fee" for my HR22-100 was an insult to my intelligence. It was advanced in how long it took to do anything - over 20+ seconds to respond to the remote control at times - but that was about it. I've been with Dish for about 2 years, and I'd probably jump on one of DirecTV's offers to come back if they could do now what they wouldn't do then - promise me I'd get their fastest receiver when I order. They won't, so I'm still with Dish.

Dish's rates are going up, too. I've been tempted to go with the local telephone company's offerings, but they just bumped their rates up almost the exact same amount. Seems everyone is getting the squeeze at the same time.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Ok , now that I'm more calm now.

My New Price increase is
$3 up for Ultimate
$1 up for Cinemax
$1 up for RSN fee
$0.60 Sales tax
Total up $5.60

Same package
Ultimate
Cinemax
5 rooms
Advanced receiver
RSN fee
Protection plan

2012 December
$149.43 including tax
2014 February
$165.33

Increase of $15.90.

Scary, since this is while under commitment.
Claimed 2 year Price total when signed up $3586.32
Real Price total by end of my contract.$3808.92
Increase of $222.60 from May 2012-May 2014
Plus the $290 in upfront equipment fees, minus the $360 Sign up credit
Makes it $152 increase
I could add another HD DVR for that!

A strange question though, Why in Wayne Pa with the exact same RSN's as Pike, does Pike Pay $3.63 RSN fee and Wayne county only $3?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I see this was still danced around for the 3rd time!



What does it cost Directv to Provide MRV on a monthly basis, that warrants a $5 charge?

Is that a money grab?

Same receivers perform the same functions so why can't I decide how I want the equipment in my house to communicate?

Answers? any?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Just guesswork on my part. I think that some portion of the equipment/service fees are there to give a cushion for channel fees increases that happen when new contracts come into play so they don't have to have more subscription increases during the year.

Imagine the hell that would be raised around here if either of them had multiple rate increases during the year! 

It is a vicious cycle now. During the year a contract comes up, channels either drop or don't and all sorts of speculations, threats and tantrums occur. Many screaming just make the deal no matter what it takes.

Then when the new rates are announced, generally the same people are belly aching the loudest with all their newly found speculations, threats and tantrums. Many screaming about how much the rate increased because of those same channel contracts...


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Just guesswork on my part. I think that some portion of the equipment/service fees are there to give a cushion for channel fees increases that happen when new contracts come into play so they don't have to have more subscription increases during the year.
> 
> Imagine the hell that would be raised around here if either of them had multiple rate increases during the year!
> 
> ...


That sounds about Right on!


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

After reading this thread I'm feeling pretty sorry for DTV, I don't know how they're scraping by.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> After reading this thread I'm feeling pretty sorry for DTV, I don't know how they're scraping by.


Join the crowd. LOL

Funny how its the same ROBOT message from 2013 price increase.
Its costing us 8% but you only 4.5% or 3.7%

Awesome!


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Here's a link to an article I ran across today that puts some of these increases in perspective. The article is primarily talking about the NFL Sunday Ticket, but also talks about how much the NFL alone has increased the charges to the other channels that want to run their games. It might be eye-opening to some.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-nfl-sunday-ticket-20140101,0,2998649.story#axzz2pAiTmnld


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> Join the crowd. LOL
> 
> Funny how its the same ROBOT message from 2013 price increase.
> Its costing us 8% but you only 4.5% or 3.7%
> ...


In all fairness the "crowd" complaining about profits and prices is less than a dozen, and in this thread alone, less than a handful. 
Maybe it's time to turn a new leaf in the new year!


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Here's a link to an article I ran across today that puts some of these increases in perspective.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-nfl-sunday-ticket-20140101,0,2998649.story#axzz2pAiTmnld


Puts the NFL in the same greedy league as the affiliates. I was surprised to read only 2 million of DirecTv
's 20 million subs take it. And that didnt say how many of those 2 million were new customers getting it free.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Don't forget that the phone company - back when it was ONE phone company charged a monthly fee for the light on the Princess phone! Even though it used your electricity!


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I've always felt that the business customers paid for all of it and some. Any consumers were just gravy.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> I've always felt that the business customers paid for all of it and some. Any consumers were just gravy.


Yeah commercial account prices for ST are crazy.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Yeah commercial account prices for ST are crazy.


Yep, They quoted me at least $3000 just for the 2014 Season.
That's not including equipment, or regular programming cost.
Could be more once the final capacity is finalized.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> In all fairness the "crowd" complaining about profits and prices is less than a dozen, and in this thread alone, less than a handful.
> Maybe it's time to turn a new leaf in the new year!


Yep, and not let these billion dollar companies get the best of us!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Yep, They quoted me at least $3000 just for the 2014 Season.
> That's not including equipment, or regular programming cost.
> Could be more once the final capacity is finalized.


Hopefully the business will make well more than the $3k having the programming than they would without it. DirecTV, and the NFL that they have to pay, are just getting a piece of the action.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

I just got off the phone with the DirecTV retention department, and the absolutely polite gentleman arranged to apply credits for the next twelve months which I can live with. He was also a little surprised when I mentioned that I placed the blame on the program providers. It also helps that I have been a customer since 2003.

So, while we had a 12 page discussion about the price increase and who bears the blame for it, I have:

Provided an incentive for a viable alternative to my "significant other" (my mother) by purchasing all seven seasons of _Golden Girls_ ($10.76 * 7 = $75.32), which was less than what I pay per month with DirecTV
Had a discussion with "significant other" over level of service and what channels they really watch, what was acceptable, and not acceptable
Did comparison shopping with local provider Surewest 
Reduced my package from Choice Xtra Classic to Entertainment 
Contacted retention for credits on my bill for 12 months
Cancelled my Crunchyroll subscription which was $19.95 every 3 months. The only streaming service I subscribe to now is Amazon Prime, which is side benefit for the expedited shipping.

What have you done?

I will admit that my priorities have changed, and television barely plays a role in my life compared with five years ago. My primary concerns revolve around job security, family (what little I have), and saving like crazy for retirement in maybe 25 years. (Yes, a recent story of a retired executive who made $120k per year now working as a demo person and a cook to make ends meet scares me). In addition, one of the goals is to visit Germany with my mother before she passes away. Again, more saving.

What pay cable (DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, et al) has a strong advantage is for events that you watch "live". The key is live sporting events such as the Super Bowl, World Series, and your local teams, especially when your teams are winning. Have you heard anyone say, "I'm rushing home to rewatch the 1989 Super Bowl between the Bengels and the 49ers?" (Maybe, the highlights). When we get to non-live events, thats when the alternatives become available.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

What have I done you ask? 

Called Directv dropped my package from Premier, to ultimate, with Starz, max, and HBO, then further dropped Starz and HBO Once price increase was confirmed. 
Then called Directv to confirm commercial rates,
Then called the cable company to see what their rates and offers were, something I wasn't going to do before the confirmed price increase.
Next the protection plan will be dropped, because I already bought a spare swm16, PI, 2 spare 4way splitters, and a new 5lnb, for less then $90 about 6 months ago. 

No I didn't speak to retention, because it obvious, I'm not leaving anytime soon. 


Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Hopefully the business will make well more than the $3k having the programming than they would without it. DirecTV, and the NFL that they have to pay, are just getting a piece of the action.


Well James I'm going to go out on a limb, and assume since businesses with Dish, Verizon, Att, Cable seem to do just fine without Nfl St, and so does, about 75 million other tv subscribers vs the less then 3 million ST subscribers.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Well James I'm going to go out on a limb, and assume since businesses with Dish, Verizon, Att, Cable seem to do just fine without Nfl St, and so does, about 75 million other tv subscribers vs the less then 3 million ST subscribers.


Well then ... if the $3k is too salty then the business has nothing to worry about. 

(The point being if they are not making more than $3k more in profit having Sunday Ticket than not having Sunday Ticket then the business should not be paying $3k for Sunday Ticket.)


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Well then ... if the $3k is too salty then the business has nothing to worry about.
> 
> (The point being if they are not making more than $3k more in profit having Sunday Ticket than not having Sunday Ticket then the business should not be paying $3k for Sunday Ticket.)


It's salty because I feel it's not necessary, even directv is starting to realize that NFL ST is past its peak, and heading in a downward spiral fast.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Well James I'm going to go out on a limb, and assume since businesses with Dish, Verizon, Att, Cable seem to do just fine without Nfl St, and so does, about 75 million other tv subscribers vs the less then 3 million ST subscribers. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


Of course it depends on the business, but is Dish viable for a sports bar? That would mean no EI or Sunday Ticket. Of course it may not really matter if the customers only care about the home market team.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> Of course it depends on the business, but is Dish viable for a sports bar? That would mean no EI or Sunday Ticket. Of course it may not really matter if the customers only care about the home market team.


Which would make DirecTV a good deal in the NY area (YES, MSG, etc) and DISH a good deal where they care about Pac-12. 

The Red Zone might be a good Sunday channel unless there were specific out of market teams one wanted to show.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I've already decided, NHL,NBA,and MLB package I'll carry. If I go with Cable they have Red Zone. Honestly I don't mind the Sunday football fans, But my restaurant is going to be geared more toward eating, and not so much spending the afternoons getting Smashed. We have about 5 bars in the area for that.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Which would make DirecTV a good deal in the NY area (YES, MSG, etc) and DISH a good deal where they care about Pac-12.


Dish is not an option, because Yankees, Mets, Rangers are Huge here.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> I've always felt that the business customers paid for all of it and some. Any consumers were just gravy.


Nope


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> It's salty because I feel it's not necessary, even directv is starting to realize that NFL ST is past its peak, and heading in a downward spiral fast.
> 
> Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


Really? I'm curious where you get that notion?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> Really? I'm curious where you get that notion?


read the links about Directv and ST.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> read the links about Directv and ST. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


Which links? 
Why don't you summarize? Not everyone has time to fish around.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> read the links about Directv and ST.
> 
> Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


I've read the comments from CEO Mike White saying they are negotiating with the NFL and have been for quite some time. I guess I'm struggling with why they would be doing this if the product was on the downfall as you mentioned.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Which links?
> Why don't you summarize? Not everyone has time to fish around.


Neither the NFL nor DirecTV would comment on their talks.

At a DirecTV investor conference in early December, Chief Executive Mike White said the company has had "very constructive conversations with the NFL" and remains optimistic that a new accord will be reached.

*That sounded more positive than what White told analysts in May, when he suggested Sunday Ticket has peaked in value. "It is a pretty mature product," he said then.*

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-nfl-sunday-ticket-20140101,0,2998649.story#ixzz2pG9IeoxW


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)




----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

"RedZone is a pretty good substitute product for Sunday Ticket," said Brian Bedol, chief executive of Bedrocket Media Ventures and a former sports television executive.

Vince Wladika, a sports media strategist, said RedZone led him to drop Sunday Ticket this season.

"RedZone gives me what I need," he said - and for only $5 to $6 a month.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-nfl-sunday-ticket-20140101,0,2998649.story#ixzz2pGEtLTzF


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> It's salty because I feel it's not necessary, *even directv is starting to realize that NFL ST is past its peak*, and heading in a downward spiral fast. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app





damondlt said:


> Neither the NFL nor DirecTV would comment on their talks.
> 
> At a DirecTV investor conference in early December, Chief Executive Mike White said the company has had "very constructive conversations with the NFL" and remains optimistic that a new accord will be reached.
> 
> ...


Which is it? Past it's peak or a mature product?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Which is it? Past it's peak or a mature product?


Past its peak was another article, that if you just go to the thread about NFL ST and just read it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Read your own Quote

*when he suggested Sunday Ticket has peaked in value*


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Read your own Quote
> 
> *when he suggested Sunday Ticket has peaked in value*


Peaked in value doesn't mean past it's peak.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

When it says HAS PEAKED It does.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> When it says HAS PEAKED It does.


White didn't say that, the author suggested he did... White said it's a pretty mature product.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

And that means past it peak.

And MR white did say it, Reread your post, or maybe just read it period .

Just accept it an move on!


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

I think the problem with ST is that ST has priced itself out of the market. When I first got it, it was $99.00 for the season, now it is shown as $329.00. Since the $99.00 price the economy has gone down, causing a lot of people to be more cautious with their entertainment spending. That $329.00 will go a long way toward giving me year round sports with the MLB & NHL package, instead of ST which gives me only 6 to 7 hours of viewing for 17 weeks.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It will certainly be interesting considering the nfl has said that they want to increase the Thursday night games and gas threatened to take the games off of the networks. 

Sent from my Z10 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Thanks for the quotes, etc. 

However, a being a mature product doesn't mean it has peaked, much less is past its peak. And certainly not that it's not spiraling down out of control.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Read the last Paragraph from the article.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Read the last Paragraph from the article.


Which would be totally dependent on how long the next deal is signed for. If it was a one year deal, that statement would be wrong. If it is a 10 year deal, the statement is probably right. Details are key in my opinion.

I would also argue that a mature product certainly doesn't mean spiraling down, let alone out of control. For a product to fit that description, the rumored parties from various articles that stated interest in it wouldn't make a lot of sense (Google, et al).

Just my two cents.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

You really think ST is that valued by tv subscribers? 

Why aren't people bending over backwards to get it. 

In 20 years of having Sunday Ticket they never even broke 4 million customers.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> You really think ST is that valued by tv subscribers? Why aren't people bending over backwards to get it. In 20 years of having Sunday Ticket they never even broke 4 million customers. Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


because some folks are just no up that type of sports. and I would assume that the majority of folks follow their home team, where they live.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> because some folks are just no up that type of sports. and I would assume that the majority of folks follow their home team, where they live.


Exactly,, and change that some folks to most folks.
And Most of Directv customers as well.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> You really think ST is that valued by tv subscribers? Why aren't people bending over backwards to get it. In 20 years of having Sunday Ticket they never even broke 4 million customers.


If the NFL wanted more subscribers to Sunday Ticket they would open it up to other providers and/or lower the price. They decided to market the package as an exclusive and keep the price high.

Subscriber count is not the only gauge of success. ST is right where the NFL wants it ... a high priced exclusive that other providers would like to have. IF the package was truly on the decline DirecTV would back away and a lesser provider (or multiple providers) would carry it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> If the NFL wanted more subscribers to Sunday Ticket they would open it up to other providers and/or lower the price. They decided to market the package as an exclusive and keep the price high.
> 
> Subscriber count is not the only gauge of success. ST is right where the NFL wants it ... a high priced exclusive that other providers would like to have. IF the package was truly on the decline DirecTV would back away and a lesser provider (or multiple providers) would carry it.


No not when they have Directv purposing Billion dollar Exclusive deals.

And the package is on the decline, there are less games then ever and the highest price ever.

What makes you think Directv isn't going to back away?

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Let me ask you James, Why hasn't DISH put up a bid for ST exclusive rights, if it such a good investment and a cash cow? 

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> What makes you think Directv isn't going to back away?


I'll tell you what ... the day DirecTV backs away you can be the first to gloat. Until then, I'll stick with the opinion of people in the industry who know what they are talking about when it comes to channel carriage issues.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

And whom might that be? Reporters?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Any time white suggests its a declining value it's for negotiation purposes IMHO. It's really simply a cash cow for everyone right now and that isn going to change anytime soon. 

And as I recall the price did drop at some point in the last couple years did it not?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

The Price drop was a lesser ST option. 

When you start dropping price thats usually a flag.

Hey if Directv wants it that bad, Good for them, But to pay more then what they are now, we'll that's nuts, and stuff like this , is why we pay so much for everything.

Directv makes these Networks and the NFL feel that they are more valuable then they really are with these outrageous Billion dollar exclusive bids, Which is why I still maintain my 51% Directv fault and 49% networks fault for Price hikes.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I have a feeling that the price increase is not only from content providers high cost but to pay for Sunday Ticket deal, they get you either way. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Let me ask you James, Why hasn't DISH put up a bid for ST exclusive rights, if it such a good investment and a cash cow? Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


How is dish for bar's any ways a quick look at the Agreement says stuff like
each box in a muilt box setup must be continuously connected to the same land based telephone line and/or broadband network. I don't think that directv forces that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> How is dish for bar's any ways a quick look at the Agreement says stuff like
> each box in a muilt box setup must be continuously connected to the same land based telephone line and/or broadband network. I don't think that directv forces that.


From DirecTV's Commercial Viewing Agreement (page 12 of this pdf):
Additional Receiver must be located at the same address as the initial DIRECTV System receiver, which address is identified as the "Service Address" in the Application attached hereto. We reserve the right to limit the number of the Additional Receivers that you may use and to establish rules for such use. *Any additional receiver not continuously connected to the identified land-based telephone line may be deemed a primary receiver and you may be charged accordingly.*

Emphasis added. Whether or not that is enforced is a separate question. It is in the agreement.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

i can tell you it is not enforced. I have the business Entertainment package, the one for areas such as customer waiting rooms or employee lunchrooms and not one of the receivers is hooked to a phone line. Never had an issue but considering what it is for we dont subscribe to any of the sports packages


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

So the official price increase letter is out, looks like packages are increasing $2-$3/month, the first premium is going up $1/month, and sports fees are going up for those markets that have them. Do we start a new thread to complain or keep complaining here?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

lokar said:


> So the official price increase letter is out, looks like packages are increasing $2-$3/month, the first premium is going up $1/month, and sports fees are going up for those markets that have them. Do we start a new thread to complain or keep complaining here?


It's been stated here already. What's the point of a new thread?


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

One thread is enough.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

lokar said:


> So the official price increase letter is out, looks like packages are increasing $2-$3/month, the first premium is going up $1/month, and sports fees are going up for those markets that have them. Do we start a new thread to complain or keep complaining here?


It makes no sense to complain, as price increases are an annual event for all satellite and cable providers.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Due to ongoing monthly costs (lease fee) and other reasons, I've been looking at getting a Slingbox 500. That coupled with my 4 Rokus (no monthly cost) will allow me to share 1 DirecTV DVR to all TVs in my home. There are typically only 2 of us in the house at a time, and with Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Streaming there would very rarely be a conflict. I'm still looking at other cost off-setting options. See http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/209234...ng-set-d-for-vacation/page-3#entry3206633.%C2 We love the DirecTV service, just not the price. We have:

2 HD DVRs
Choice
No premiums
No sports packages
No MRV/Whole Home

If we desire to continue DirecTV (for sports programming included with Choice) dropping down to 1 DVR seems to be the only feasible option.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Tubaman-Z said:


> Due to ongoing monthly costs (lease fee) and other reasons, I've been looking at getting a Slingbox 500. That coupled with my 4 Rokus (no monthly cost) will allow me to share 1 DirecTV DVR to all TVs in my home. There are typically only 2 of us in the house at a time, and with Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Streaming there would very rarely be a conflict. I'm still looking at other cost off-setting options. See We love the DirecTV service, just not the price. We have:
> 
> 2 HD DVRs
> Choice
> ...


The Sling Box and Roku work through your smartphone app. But make sure you don't have a Windows phone. It will only work on and Android or iPhone. Hope they come out with a windows App soon.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

loudo said:


> The Sling Box and Roku work through your smartphone app. But make sure you don't have a Windows phone. It will only work on and Android or iPhone. Hope they come out with a windows App soon.


Thanks very much for the info. I admit that I had not done my homework and assumed it was a direct Slingbox->Roku channel. A bit clunky, but not impossible to work with. I have an iPod Touch (no smartphone - I'm too cheap  which seems like it would work.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Tubaman-Z said:


> Thanks very much for the info. I admit that I had not done my homework and assumed it was a direct Slingbox->Roku channel. A bit clunky, but not impossible to work with. I have an iPod Touch (no smartphone - I'm too cheap  which seems like it would work.


I thought the same thing. I use my Sling Box when I am away from home and figured I would use it around the house with my Roku. I already had both, so it was loss to me, just a big disappointment when I found out that I had to use a smartphone to send a signal to the TV, when my Roku box and Slingbox are on the same network. Not sure if you saw this, but here is the information on the two working together.
http://www.slingbox.com/go/roku-promo?utm_campaign=Roku&utm_medium=display&utm_source=rokudotcom-rokuapp


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

Guess it's time to re-evaluate the HD Extra Pack and the Protection Plan.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

How much does it cost to add the sports pack (RSNS) to the ultimate pack? i


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

celticpride said:


> How much does it cost to add the sports pack (RSNS) to the ultimate pack? i


Currently $12.99, but it will increase to $13.99 per mo. after 2/6/14. (This is assuming you have no other premiums in addition to Ultimate base package)


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

FLWingNut said:


> Guess it's time to re-evaluate the HD Extra Pack and the Protection Plan.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Same here, though I'll probably keep the PP due to owned boxes. Extra Pack on the other hand...


----------

