# DVR Fee, per house or per receiver?



## SJ HART (Feb 12, 2003)

Is the new DISH PVR Fee, per receiver or per house. For example, if I have a 510 and 921 will I pay a fee for each receiver? Thanks.


----------



## toad57 (Apr 23, 2002)

Most recent word, I believe, is *per receiver*


----------



## Bob Saylor (Aug 18, 2003)

Boy, that would suck! I was thinking per account.


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

DISH still hasn't learned how to treat customers, they want to get rich. DVOD(Dish Video On Demand) FEE IS PER RECEIVER NOT PER ACCOUNT LIKE DIRECTV.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

I feel that DISH will be FORCED (by the marketplace) to back off on the PER RECEIVER DVOD fee and change it to a PER ACCOUNT fee.


----------



## Bob Haller (Mar 24, 2002)

If murdock sticks to his plan D DVRs will be free and Charlie will have to find a different way


----------



## chessmaster1010 (May 29, 2002)

Bill R said:


> I feel that DISH will be FORCED (by the marketplace) to back off on the PER RECEIVER DVOD fee and change it to a PER ACCOUNT fee.


I don't think so. The percentage of customers with more than one DVR is very, very small - despite their over-representation on these forums. Dish probably thinks that (without the per/receiver fee) they would be losing money on any new multiple DVR subscribers since they are now heavily subsidizing the cost of the new DVRs they get, and the support costs for these customers is often higher. With free installation deals and dish upgrades being so common they also have to worry about the extra cost of switches and cabling for customers who want multiple two-tuner DVRs.

Remember current subscribers with multiple 501s/508s/721s are not being charged any DVR fee.

If the entire market of new multiple DVR subscribers decided to forgo Dish and subscribe to Direct TV, Dish might even be thinking "good riddance".


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2003)

And Charlie has the gall to sit there on the last chat and tell the viewers that E*'s PVR fees are the cheapest in the biz. He justifies this by comparing his fees to the fees for a standalone Tivo and not the DirecTivo. What a joke.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

cws80us said:


> And Charlie has the gall to sit there on the last chat and tell the viewers that E*'s PVR fees are the cheapest in the biz. He justifies this by comparing his fees to the fees for a standalone Tivo and not the DirecTivo. What a joke.


What do you expect him to do, tell everyone that Directv has better pricing on DVRs? Some posts on here make no sense. I'll repeat that Dish is a business like many others and all advertisments and wording is put in their favor. Please understand that.


----------



## Bob Haller (Mar 24, 2002)

I seriously wonder if Charlie is even aware of the difference? He appears detached and occasionally surprised by stuff we are all fully aware of.

He might not know whats up

Or he is prepping E for sale and is going for the short term numbers...


----------



## Hack (Aug 14, 2003)

Why is E* charging any fee at all when DTV at least has to pay TIVO some royalties to use the technology and name while E* has to pay nothing AFIAK other than to charge people what the receivers should be worth? So charge people what the equipment is worth and get rid of the fees. Especially the bogus fee for each receiver which is a bad move regardless if it doesn't affect many people.

E* should be promoting free PVR since they don't offer the NFL or have to pay Tivo.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Because Charlie want's to get paid just like everyone else. He sees directv getting paid and Tivo getting monthly subscriptions so he wants his fair share of the moola> Hopefully Rupert will do what he says and offer to Directv customers free dvrs and no subscription fees . This will cause Dish and Charlie to drop these riduclous fees >


----------

