# HDNet and HD Extra Package



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

You know, I have read through all of this and I can't help but think one thing- I have had a package of HD channels that I paid $9.99 a month for for about 2 years. Now, after the long promised (and hyped but slowly delivered) new channels show up, they decide to charge more for channels that I have had all along. The best part- THEY SEND ME AN ADVERTISEMENT IN THE MAIL BRAGGING ABOUT HOW GREAT IT IS.

I don't know anything about how this all works, how satellites work, or how the channels are placed into packages. All I know is that they are removing channels and then charging me more to get them.

It doesn't seem right to me, and I don't care what the rationale is.:nono2: It ranks right up there with paying $300 for the "right" to pay $5 a month for a receiver.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

paulsown (and others) .. So, if you were given the choice to keep JUST the channels that you had prior to the new HD coming out .. none of the new stuff .. for that same $10 today would you keep it or take the new stuff instead?


----------



## tko (Sep 27, 2007)

The only problem I have is D* is alienating their current MPEG2 HD customer base. D* is basically saying upgrade now and extend your contract or pay the current $9.99 HD access fee plus the additional $5 fee to keep what you currently receive.


----------



## chrpai (Oct 27, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> paulsown (and others) .. So, if you were given the choice to keep JUST the channels that you had prior to the new HD coming out .. none of the new stuff .. for that same $10 today would you keep it or take the new stuff instead?


Fair enough, *EXCEPT* that D* promised to deliver these channels for years and also promised that they wouldn't be raising the price. Don't blame me for being a little bitter, THEY set the expectation.

It seem's that they want it both ways. They want to string customers along with promises and then not have us get upset when they change the deal.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

chrpai said:


> Fair enough, *EXCEPT* that D* promised to deliver these channels for years and also promised that they wouldn't be raising the price. Don't blame me for being a little bitter, THEY set the expectation.
> 
> It seem's that they want it both ways. They want to string customers along with promises and then not have us get upset when they change the deal.


I'm not blaming anyone for being bitter .. I'm actually asking a hypothetical question. I'm curious what people might do if they were offered to keep the same channels for that original $10 and none of the new stuff.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Would someone please post a link or something that confirms that D* promised not to increase the cost of HD programming. I have heard it many times but have not seen (or remember seeing :sure: )a source for this promise.

I am not implying that they did not say it, but a source to refresh our memory on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> paulsown (and others) .. So, if you were given the choice to keep JUST the channels that you had prior to the new HD coming out .. none of the new stuff .. for that same $10 today would you keep it or take the new stuff instead?


I think it would be better if they just called it what it was....a price increase. In a way, I feel like I am dealing with a used car company. It's all about honesty. If they want to raise the price, tell me about it. Don't take away channels and then try to charge me to get them back. Thats a little sleazy.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

lwilli201 said:


> Would someone please post a link or something that confirms that D* promised not to increase the cost of HD programming.


Below is what Earl posted May 10 in Programming section under thread titled "Directv Won't Charge More for Extra HD" in Post #20.



> Right now... all we have is the CEO of DirecTV stating that the HD rate will not increase this fall when the additional channels are added.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> Below is what Earl posted May 10 in Programming section under thread titled "Directv Won't Charge More for Extra HD" in Post #20.


In the 1st quarter earnings conference call 


> Thank you. My question relates to your HD roll out, especially when you get to the point where you have 100 channels, not 150. How should we think about the margins on that business? Both in terms of what kind of incremental pricing that is going to be on that package as well as the cost associated with it from an operational standpoint? Programming costs and what it costs for back haul, et cetera -- the margin would be better or worse than the existing base video business? Thanks.
> 
> *Chase Carey *
> 
> I think in terms of pricing, it is probably -- essentially, we've got a $10 price to the package and we don't have plans to change that. So from a pricing perspective, the addition of the channels is not going to change what we do today with the product.


DIRECTV must have calculated the net $ gain associated with HD was not sufficient once many of the new carriage agreements were in place. Yes they would gain subscribers, but that takes time to recoup their investment. Wonder if the DIRECTV lawyers had sufficient time to thoroughly review the HD Extra Pack. It had to be implemented within a relatively short time to maximize the profits.

Somewhat surprised that there was no communication with HDNet...

Edit: After reading these again...the cost of HD upgrades is consistently being mentioned, and how the demand is affecting profit margins....I'm also wondering since programming costs did not increase according to Chase (2nd quarter), if this tier is created to recoup some of the cost of the higher than expected demand for HD-DVRs?


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

lwilli201 said:


> Would someone please post a link or something that confirms that D* promised not to increase the cost of HD programming. I have heard it many times but have not seen (or remember seeing :sure: )a source for this promise.
> 
> I am not implying that they did not say it, but a source to refresh our memory on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks.


How about this one from Earl:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1022466&postcount=3

DirecTV has already stated multiple times, that the HD package price will not increase in the fall.

There were MANY such assurances at the time.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Here is another one from Earl, dated September 12:

If you are an existing customer... the prices will not increase, and you will still have access to all the same HD channels you have now.. (Hence the grandfathering).

If you are a new customer, or new HD customer... you will get HD-ACCESS based on your current package subscription, for the same costs as for today.

The only thing that could "possible" be considered an increase, is that you will need the HD Extra Pack, if you want some of the channels that don't have a corresponding SD network.... as that will be a package.

And that will only be those that that dont' currently have the package.

So there is no increase for existing customers... 
Only new HD customers that want those extra HD channels.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

oakwcj said:


> Here is another one from Earl, dated September 12:


Proving only that even Earl is fallable.

Further, the implication (and subsequent discussion) was that DHDT would logically be included in the HD Extra channels.

Obviously the packaging is still in flux.


----------



## Captaintrips420 (Sep 1, 2007)

if only we lived in a world where corporations cared about the customer. they sell a service at whatever damn price they feel they can squeeze out of their customer base...

no matter how many times they might have said those things to make people happy waiting just a little bit longer, i dont think its possible to hold a corporation to their word..its not like they care about about you so long as you dont switch to inferior programming else... fat chance for me, I'm hooked on the new HD!


----------



## vankai (Jan 22, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not blaming anyone for being bitter .. I'm actually asking a hypothetical question. I'm curious what people might do if they were offered to keep the same channels for that original $10 and none of the new stuff.


I'm curious if D* would hypothetically give us a choice of keeping the same channels for that original $10 and none of the new stuff or pay $15 for 2 tiers to include all HD content?

<did i just say that out loud?> :grin:


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

tko said:


> The only problem I have is D* is alienating their current MPEG2 HD customer base. D* is basically saying upgrade now and extend your contract or pay the current $9.99 HD access fee plus the additional $5 fee to keep what you currently receive.


This is hardly an issue related to the MPEG2 HD customer base. The writing is already on the wall for them... they are dinosaurs who will either adapt or die. The days of the MPEG2-only HD customer are about over and those who refuse to accept that reality are going to have bigger problems than having some of the existing HD channels moved into a higher tier at an extra cost.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

chrpai said:


> Fair enough, *EXCEPT* that D* promised to deliver these channels for years and also promised that they wouldn't be raising the price. Don't blame me for being a little bitter, THEY set the expectation.
> 
> It seem's that they want it both ways. They want to string customers along with promises and then not have us get upset when they change the deal.


That's the problem. D* lied to their customers about their intentions to repackage some of the HD channels into a separate tier at an additional cost, while locking them into two year commitments.

I have no problem with D* packaging their channels into as many tiers as they see fit and saying here is the cost.... if you it's not worth it to you, then don't buy it, but I do have a problem with them explicitly stating that the HD access fee was going to cover all the HD channels if you had a Premier subscription, and also explicitly stating that there would be no additional charges for the upcoming HD channels, while asking me commit to service for two years to get those channels, only to reveal that they were lying to me when I made that commitment.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

I am going to vote with my wallet and NOT purchase the new so called HDExtra pack, of course come spring look for the 9.99 fee to increase as well...Thats why we need the other HD providers to get their butts into gear and offer some serious competition, otherwise D' will have no reason to keep its prices down..thats just the nature of the beast......


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Although I watch and enjoy both HDNet and HD Movies regularly and have done so since I jumped into HD in January 2003 (been with D* since 1997), they will no longer be among my channels I'll have available to watch after mid-December since I will not pay the additional premium D* has requested.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

I won't pay for them either. It's a matter of principles. If they need to charge more, then they should just come out and say it. They should not try and sneak it in by creating another "channel package". What's next, $5.00 for a cartoon package? Or $5.00 for a news channel package? 

It sounds funny but think about it.

By the way, please don't start with "quit whining" and "just leave Directv then". It does not add to the conversation.


----------



## chrpai (Oct 27, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not blaming anyone for being bitter .. I'm actually asking a hypothetical question. I'm curious what people might do if they were offered to keep the same channels for that original $10 and none of the new stuff.


I might actually keep it. I find that I watch a lot of content from those channels. Just the other day my neighbor came over and we were watching Hoosiers. Then there is the Law and Order, Enterprise and Torchwood. Many of the new channels don't ever seem to actually have HD content anyways. In the month of watching CNN the only thing I saw in HD was Planet In Peril and that's because I recorded it. It's never actually HD when I'm sitting around the TV. I wish all of these new `HD` channels were like HDNet in their always HD always 1080i pledge.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

I'm won't be getting the "HD Extra Pack" either. While I do _occasionally_ watch some of the channels, there's not enough interesting content there to warrant paying extra.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not blaming anyone for being bitter .. I'm actually asking a hypothetical question. I'm curious what people might do if they were offered to keep the same channels for that original $10 and none of the new stuff.


As a new subscriber in October, if that offer had been made on their packages page, I would have at least been aware of the extra HD package and known the actual cost before two year subscripton.

I did price the packages by choosing each one and adding features. For HD there was only one choice for $9.99. I also received all the channels. That's the first thing new subscibers do is see if they get all the channels. Now, I find out here they are going to take them away.

So, all I'm saying is that they got away with concealing the actual cost to new subscribers.

Why can't you see this as deceptive?

If new subscribers are aware of the full cost it will keep the cost down, as even a $5 fee, with confusing packaging will lower new subscribers.

So, they can offer whatever they want as long as it's on their website when you are BUILDING you subscription package.

I may not have chosen D* if I had known about this, because I want to subscribe to a package and not have channels taken away. I would rather have them increase the fee, and make that available to new subscribers to keep the rate hike lower.

(please, anyone, don't take exception to part of my post out of context)


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

man_rob said:


> I'm won't be getting the "HD Extra Pack" either. While I do _occasionally_ watch some of the channels, there's not enough interesting content there to warrant paying extra.


This is exactly HDNet's beef.


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

harsh said:


> Proving only that even Earl is fallable.
> 
> Further, the implication (and subsequent discussion) was that DHDT would logically be included in the HD Extra channels.
> 
> Obviously the packaging is still in flux.


Harsh, I am impressed that you are using the same sense of skepticism you normally apply to D* with the other side.

The only thing I have been able to find on this is from a investor meeting months ago when Cahse Carey said they did not have any "plans" to change the pricing at launch. But it seems people want to take any kind of indication even leaning one way as a "PROMISE" that this will be the case.

I am starting to think the D* no HD price increase promise has become an "urban myth".

OK everybody start telling me how wrong I am.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

kaysersoze said:


> Harsh, I am impressed that you are using the same sense of skepticism you normally apply to D* with the other side.
> 
> The only thing I have been able to find on this is from a investor meeting months ago when Cahse Carey said they did not have any "plans" to change the pricing at launch. But it seems people want to take any kind of indication even leaning one way as a "PROMISE" that this will be the case.
> 
> ...


So you've got Earl (who brags about how close his contacts are) claiming on not one, not two, but three separate occasions in the past 6 months - May 10th 2007, July 27th, and September 12 stating clearly "So there is no increase for existing customers". And it is now an urban myth?


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

> So you've got Earl (who brags about how close his contacts are) claiming on not one, not two, but three separate occasions in the past 6 months - May 10th 2007, July 27th, and September 12 stating clearly "So there is no increase for existing customers". And it is now an urban myth?


Borrowing a page from our not too distant political history, perhaps whether it's an urban myth all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

jjohns said:


> So you've got Earl (who brags about how close his contacts are) claiming on not one, not two, but three separate occasions in the past 6 months - May 10th 2007, July 27th, and September 12 stating clearly "So there is no increase for existing customers". And it is now an urban myth?


Last I checked Earl's sig states clearly that he is not a D* employee. I have yet to see any corporation make pricing announcements through "friends".


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

kaysersoze said:


> I am starting to think the D* no HD price increase promise has become an "urban myth".
> 
> OK everybody start telling me how wrong I am.


 
http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvprice062807.htm

http://www.tvpredictions.com/askswanni070107.htm

Part of the problem is that Directv is using "Comcast speak" in regards to the shifting of packages and pricing. Same beef that HDNet has....

http://www.tvpredictions.com/dprices101807.htm


> It's hard to see how this represents an increase when customers will continue to pay the $9.99 access fee that allows them to receive DIRECTV's HD technology and all channels broadcast in HD that are tied to their respective base programming package," he said. "Once the HD Extra tier preview ends in mid-December, customers will have the option of taking the package, or not. That we moved three channels from our regular HD lineup into the Xtra tier hardly represents an 'HD price increase/' Arguably they pay a little extra if they want those three channels back, but that's their option."


But...part of the problem is some took the "no increase in programming cost" to mean no increase in the consumer's programming cost, when it actually meant - no increase in programming cost to Directv. 


> *Chase Carey*
> 
> In terms of HD rollout, it will not have an impact. We are looking to get the HD channels as part of what we would expect as part of a relationship on the standard def channels, so we do not -- we will not have a programming cost increase related to HD.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not blaming anyone for being bitter .. I'm actually asking a hypothetical question. I'm curious what people might do if they were offered to keep the same channels for that original $10 and none of the new stuff.


We can ask hypotheticals all day, such as "what would you pay for perfect uncompressed SD like D* used to have?" Not going to happen either.

DirecTV has built themselves a nightmare in their attempt to weasel out of the "no HD price increase" that they used to attack E* with. They've created an artificial distinction regarding SD/HD pairing (and ignored it when it suited them), in order to call the price increase something else. Now Cuban is holding their feet to the fire for calling _HD Access_ a tier when it saved D* money, and asserting it isn't when it costs them. Weasels on the backs of weasels.

The really funny thing is that I appear to be grandfathered because I have a connected HR10, so I don't see any line item about the Extra Pack, $0.00 or otherwise. And I'd hate to give up HDNetMovies and MGMHD, which source about half my movie recordings. I'd pick either of them over any other single movie channel, premium or not. Worth $5 just for those.

But they aren't charging me. I imagine that if Mark Cuban wins, that _HD Access_ will go to $15 or $20 a bit sooner than it would otherwise. Which means I'd probably pay for what I'm currently sliding with. But my bill would be clear and honest, rather than having more bogus fees. Still not happy with paying an effective lease fee for my owned boxes. Firing a few D* executive jerks would brighten anyone's day.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

kaysersoze said:


> Last I checked Earl's sig states clearly that he is not a D* employee. I have yet to see any corporation make pricing announcements through "friends".


Well, Earl could be considered a bit co-opted, but that's really not the issue. DirecTV's FAQs have clearly stated over the last year that there would be no such price increases. Of course web sites can change, so maybe it's not up now, but any search on this topic will reveal the clear language D* used on it's own website.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

paulsown said:


> They should not try and sneak it in by creating another "channel package". What's next, $5.00 for a cartoon package? Or $5.00 for a news channel package?
> 
> It sounds funny but think about it.


I agree. You are not far off with $5 cartoon package concept. Remember when D* was marketing the Baby First channel for $9.99 per month -- just one channel. They dropped the price in half after that and I'm not sure if it still exists but it shows you what D* will do to create additional profit. Look at the DVR fee for non-Tivo DVRs as an another example. What is D* providing in return for that $5.99 fee per month if you have non-Tivo DVR?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

kcmurphy88 said:


> We can ask hypotheticals all day, such as "what would you pay for perfect uncompressed SD like D* used to have?" Not going to happen either.
> 
> DirecTV has built themselves a nightmare in their attempt to weasel out of the "no HD price increase" that they used to attack E* with. They've created an artificial distinction regarding SD/HD pairing (and ignored it when it suited them), in order to call the price increase something else. Now Cuban is holding their feet to the fire for calling _HD Access_ a tier when it saved D* money, and asserting it isn't when it costs them. Weasels on the backs of weasels.
> 
> ...


You hit it right on the head, brother.

I've been a long time customer of DirecTV but starting with the HR20 handling and now a fee increase, I have been extremely disappointed, and to a point, bitter. It hasn't been the HR20 itself, or even the price increase itself; Its the way DirecTV has handled them. There is an internet now and consumers are much more savvy, not only to technical issues but also savvy to tech-speak. As a result, the policy of confuse and complicate or quietly sweep under the rug, does not work any more.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

I sense a growing disaster here for D* and they've gotta do something to get this under control in a forthright, honest manner!


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

harsh said:


> Proving only that even Earl is fallable.
> 
> Further, the implication (and subsequent discussion) was that DHDT would logically be included in the HD Extra channels.
> 
> Obviously the packaging is still in flux.


I'm sure that Earl was passing along the best information he had at the time and that he had no intention to deceive. I can't say the same about Chase Carey whose credibility many on this forum have so vociferously defended.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

oakwcj said:


> the best information he had at the time and that he had no intention to deceive. I can't say the same about Chase Carey whose credibility many on this forum have so vociferously defended.


This would go along with the idea that this was a recent deviation from the original plan (along with the lack of communication with HDNet, previous statements & press coverage stating no price increases.) Probably a financial pro said...hey the "programming is not costing us extra"...but look at the cost to upgrade everyone & add new subscribers to HD. Can't add another DVR fee...what else is there? Ahh...."Extra Pack".


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

islander66 said:


> Why can't you see this as deceptive?


I don't believe I have ever said anything about it being deceptive or not. In fact, I still haven't made a decision as to what I think the right answer is.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

kcmurphy88 said:


> The really funny thing is that I appear to be grandfathered because I have a connected HR10, so I don't see any line item about the Extra Pack, $0.00 or otherwise. And I'd hate to give up HDNetMovies and MGMHD, which source about half my movie recordings. I'd pick either of them over any other single movie channel, premium or not. Worth $5 just for those.


I believe the HD Extra Pack goes into effect in December, so it won't be on any bills yet. Also, many reports have stated there will be no grandfathering ... if you have it now, you will see a charge for December unless you call to OPT OUT of the Extra package.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> I believe the HD Extra Pack goes into effect in December, so it won't be on any bills yet. Also, many reports have stated there will be no grandfathering ... if you have it now, you will see a charge for December unless you call to OPT OUT of the Extra package.


Even if you've never opted IN? Now, that would be Orwellian. I'm in a "free preview" for channels I already get. I expect DirecTV to take HDNET, HDNET Movies, and UHD away from me on December 15. I don't expect to be billed extra for them without my express request. According to the DirecTV mailing a few weeks ago:

"DirecTV HD Extra Pack [Free Preview until 12/15]*

*Add DirecTV HD Extra Pack to your current plan for only $4.99 per month."


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

oakwcj said:


> Early in my career, I was a legal services attorney and often sought TRO's in welfare cases. The easy part of the decision for the judge will be whether moving HDNET to the Extra Pack is a breach of their contract. The hard part will be determining whether a failure to provide injunctive relief will irreparably harm HDNET and whether HDNET has an adequate remedy at law -- financial damages. Some judges are extremely averse to issuing TRO's, except perhaps in domestic violence cases. The reason that the TRO application seems a bit hyperbolic is precisely because Cuban's lawyers understand that they've got to get the judge to believe that moving HDNET will destroy it. I think it's a tough sell.


If the injunction is granted, HDNet will likely have to post a bond that may be awarded to D* should it turn out after the case is over that the injunction should not have been granted.


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I don't believe I have ever said anything about it being deceptive or not. In fact, I still haven't made a decision as to what I think the right answer is.


After reading my entire post you can't see this as being deceptive?

All you did was take one part of my post out of context.

Now your the one being defensive?

Amazing.

Posting on this website is becoming a waste of time.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> Even if you've never opted IN? Now, that would be Orwellian. I'm in a "free preview" for channels I already get. I expect DirecTV to take HDNET, HDNET Movies, and UHD away from me on December 15. I don't expect to be billed extra for them without my express request. According to the DirecTV mailing a few weeks ago:
> 
> "DirecTV HD Extra Pack [Free Preview until 12/15]*
> 
> *Add DirecTV HD Extra Pack to your current plan for only $4.99 per month."


DirecTV knows that there are a lot of early customers that have been getting HDNet for a long time. Out of the blue they decide to call it a "free preview" and then start charging these same customers 5 dollars more if they want to see HDNet in December. Are they so arrogant that they don't see that these customers will be upset? Or do you think they care?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

kaysersoze said:


> Last I checked Earl's sig states clearly that he is not a D* employee. I have yet to see any corporation make pricing announcements through "friends".


A number of us have seen the print ads stating that all of this was available "without paying an extra dime." A number of people heard statements made on the financial calls. This is not a mass conspiracy to put words in the mouths of DirecTV.

There's a huge difference between discussing when channels will be available (all second-hand at best) and discussing DirecTV's previous public statements regarding their HD pricing.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

islander66 said:


> After reading my entire post you can't see this as being deceptive?
> 
> All you did was take one part of my post out of context.
> 
> ...


Let's see, I ask a hypothetical question and your response was to ask me why I didn't think DIRECTV was being deceptive. I'm just trying to make it clear that I said nothing about whether DIRECTV was being deceptive or not. That's all.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

Those complaining about D* being deceptive or unscrupulous or whatever in regard to this new tier/price increase thing remind me of Captain Renault in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here."

D*s "promises" not to raise prices weren't the simple declaritive statements many are making them out to be. They left themselves plenty of wiggle room. Beyond that, how long did you expect them to hold the line? Would 6 months have been enough? A year? 5 years?

They're in the business of making money. They have a duty to the owners (shareholders) to make the most money they can. That's why they exist.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

KurtV said:


> Those complaining about D* being deceptive or unscrupulous or whatever in regard to this new tier/price increase thing remind me of Captain Renault in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here."
> 
> D*s "promises" not to raise prices weren't the simple declaritive statements many are making them out to be. They left themselves plenty of wiggle room. Beyond that, how long did you expect them to hold the line? Would 6 months have been enough? A year? 5 years?
> 
> They're in the business of making money. They have a duty to the owners (shareholders) to make the most money they can. That's why they exist.


The way they have done it is like a car dealership taking the floor mats out of a new car that includes them and then charging extra to put them back. It's just sleazy. If they sent out a letter saying "now that we have added new HD channels, we will have to increase rates to cover the costs associated....blah blah", I would not have been happy, but I would understand. To remove channels and then try to charge to get them back is sleazy. It's about honesty. These types of business tactics make me feel like they think I am stupid.

It doesn't really matter if they were declarative statements or not, they inferred that they would not raise prices, and then they tried raise prices in a somewhat sneaky way.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

my $.02

Directv didnt actually say they wouldnt increase prices for HD. What they actually said (cleverly in hindsight) is that they wouldnt increase the price for you to get the NEW hd channels. They didnt say ALL HD would say the same.

Now you can argue about interpretation of that statement but all the wording was about receiving the new HD channels.

So maybe HDNET and the others dont have an argument. But MGM, Smithsonian and those do. As we will have to pay more to receive those NEW HD channels.

But D* still has its get out clause of pricing and programming subject to change 

Still - i think 3 months is too soon for any increase however you want to look at it. 6 months - you can argue anything in 6 months about prices and costs (look at gas and oil/barrel). 

I am resigned to the fact there will be an extra tier at $5 if i choose it. Dont know exactly what is going to be in there but it will be there. At least i have an option.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

paulsown said:


> The way they have done it is like a car dealership taking the floor mats out of a new car that includes them and then charging extra to put them back. It's just sleazy. If they sent out a letter saying "now that we have added new HD channels, we will have to increase rates to cover the costs associated....blah blah", I would not have been happy, but I would understand. To remove channels and then try to charge to get them back is sleazy. It's about honesty. These types of business tactics make me feel like they think I am stupid.
> 
> It doesn't really matter if they were declarative statements or not, they inferred that they would not raise prices, and then they tried raise prices in a somewhat sneaky way.


That analogy doesnt quite fit.

What they gave you was a 2007 model with a deluxe pack which included the car mats. In the 2008 model the deluxe pack came with In Car Navigation system and JBL stereo and DVD player. No car mats. But for the first few months they threw the car mats in for free. Now they are charging if you want them.

Has happened with car options i have. Same thing with D*. You got more in your new pack and they took some other things out.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

islander66 said:


> As a new subscriber in October, if that offer had been made on their packages page, I would have at least been aware of the extra HD package and known the actual cost before two year subscripton.
> 
> I did price the packages by choosing each one and adding features. For HD there was only one choice for $9.99. I also received all the channels. That's the first thing new subscibers do is see if they get all the channels. Now, I find out here they are going to take them away.
> 
> ...


I have to ask.

When you signed up in October the HD channels were up. You were getting the new channels. You said you checked the website to make sure you had all the channels.

Did you see HDNET and HDNET movies on your package when you checked the website?

If not then you were not expecting them. And so they didnt influence your decision to subscribe to the 2yr contract and so you cant say by D* taking them away you were conned.

I can see where you are coming from with the HD DVR package thinking you had everything, but there is a difference between assuming and actually checking and they stated that it was everything in the choice xtra plus the HD access and the DVR fee. So you werent expecting the premiums in HD and so werent expecting EVERY HD channel. Again they didnt list HDNET movies and those on the packages BEFORE the launch of the new channels in September. So you cannot say you were deceived by D*.

I am on the Premium package with HD Access where they STILL say I will get the BEST HD on offer. I feel aggrieved at that as I wont get the BEST unless I pay the extra.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

F1 Fan said:


> my $.02
> 
> Directv didnt actually say they wouldnt increase prices for HD. What they actually said (cleverly in hindsight) is that they wouldnt increase the price for you to get the NEW hd channels. They didnt say ALL HD would say the same.
> 
> ...


Yes they did say they wouldn't raise rates. They are still saying it, claiming that the $4.99 doesn't constitute a price increase.

From TV Predictions:



> "It's hard to see how this represents an increase when customers will continue to pay the $9.99 access fee that allows them to receive DIRECTV's HD technology and all channels broadcast in HD that are tied to their respective base programming package," he said. "Once the HD Extra tier preview ends in mid-December, customers will have the option of taking the package, or not. That we moved three channels from our regular HD lineup into the Xtra tier hardly represents an 'HD price increase/' Arguably they pay a little extra if they want those three channels back, but that's their option."
> 
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/dprices101807.htm


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

kaysersoze said:


> Harsh, I am impressed that you are using the same sense of skepticism you normally apply to D* with the other side.
> 
> The only thing I have been able to find on this is from a investor meeting months ago when Cahse Carey said they did not have any "plans" to change the pricing at launch. But it seems people want to take any kind of indication even leaning one way as a "PROMISE" that this will be the case.
> 
> ...


OK... you are very wrong. As late as September, the HD FAQ on DirecTV's website was stating that a subscription to Premier and HD access was all that you needed to get "the most HD channels we currently carry", and was all that was necessary "to see all of the new channels".

It seems that DirecTV's customers were being told the same lie that HDNet alleges they were told when they asked about DirecTV's plans to create an additional tier and start charging more for some of the HD channels


----------



## Bertrude (Nov 3, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> OK... you are very wrong. As late as September, the HD FAQ on DirecTV's website was stating that a subscription to Premier and HD access was all that you needed to get "the most HD channels we currently carry", and was all that was necessary "to see all of the new channels".
> 
> It seems that DirecTV's customers were being told the same lie that HDNet alleges they were told when they asked about DirecTV's plans to create an additional tier and start charging more for some of the HD channels


And even as of today, that's all you would need to add. Officially, no one has to subscribe to the HD Extra Pack to receive these channels until after Dec 15th, and the FAQ has already been updated to reflect that, in advance of that launch. Stating that the fact that this wasn't reflected on Directv's website 3 months prior to the launch is a 'lie' is a bit of an overstatement.


----------



## rynberg (Oct 6, 2006)

Why bother getting all ticky-tacky defending D*'s behaviour in this matter? I can't believe there is truly anyone here who doesn't feel at least a little bit sour about this extra package. I would much rather they raised the HD access fee by $1 or $2 for everyone than do this. I would not feel bad about this, given the new channels. However, having to pay another $5 to maintain two of my old channels, as well as to maintain three of the "new" channels, strikes me as pretty crappy. Doing this would have avoided this whole HDNet issue also.

Personally, only lawyers should be worried about the fine print and loopholes in the contract. The rest of us should be feeling a bit sour about the INTENT of the contract being voided....


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

F1 Fan said:


> That analogy doesnt quite fit.
> 
> What they gave you was a 2007 model with a deluxe pack which included the car mats. In the 2008 model the deluxe pack came with In Car Navigation system and JBL stereo and DVD player. No car mats. But for the first few months they threw the car mats in for free. Now they are charging if you want them.
> 
> Has happened with car options i have. Same thing with D*. You got more in your new pack and they took some other things out.


Actually, they advertised that the car came with the mats, they have been included for some time, and now they call it a "free preview". The "new model" is the same version we have had, just updated to keep up with everyone else.

If Directv wants to charge more, they should just say it, and not be sneaky.


----------



## aramus8 (Nov 21, 2006)

If D* just came out and said they would have to raise the HD access fee a couple of dollars due to increased costs, I really wouldn't have an issue with that. To me, trying to sneak in an extra fee by arranging the channels differently is just sneaky and underhanded. Then there's the latest D* ad pushing HD for as little as $29.95 when the actual lowest package cost is near $40. D* has the best thing going right now and its like these corporate morons don't know how to handle it. Just tell the truth, be up front with pricing, and be proud of what you have accomplished, and the subscribers and money will roll in like never before...or keep going down the E* marketing path and flush it all down the toilet.


----------



## SWORDFISH (Apr 16, 2007)

F1 Fan said:


> That analogy doesnt quite fit.
> 
> What they gave you was a 2007 model with a deluxe pack which included the car mats. In the 2008 model the deluxe pack came with In Car Navigation system and JBL stereo and DVD player. No car mats. * But for the first few months they threw the car mats in for free.* Now they are charging if you want them.
> 
> Has happened with car options i have. Same thing with D*. You got more in your new pack and they took some other things out.


For your analogy to be accurate, D* would have to grandfather current subscribers. Otherwise your analogy would need to include the car dealer taking the free mats away from the people who bought the car in the first few months and charging them to get the mats back.

SF


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

SWORDFISH said:


> For your analogy to be accurate, D* would have to grandfather current subscribers. Otherwise your analogy would need to include the car dealer taking the free mats away from the people who bought the car in the first few months and charging them to get the mats back.
> 
> SF


How about this: The dealership calls you to tell you that they will upgrade the stereo in your car for free. After they upgrade the stereo, they take out the floor mats, tell you that the floor mats were on a "free preview", and that it costs $5 a month to get them back.:hurah:


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

KurtV said:


> Those complaining about D* being deceptive or unscrupulous or whatever in regard to this new tier/price increase thing remind me of Captain Renault in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here."
> 
> D*s "promises" not to raise prices weren't the simple declaritive statements many are making them out to be. They left themselves plenty of wiggle room. Beyond that, how long did you expect them to hold the line? Would 6 months have been enough? A year? 5 years?
> 
> They're in the business of making money. They have a duty to the owners (shareholders) to make the most money they can. That's why they exist.


Thanks for the "heads up" Mr. Gekko.  Misinformation/Dis-information/WiggleRoom Communications...all justified by the bottom-line. They have a duty to make the most money they can....but not any way they can. Some of the "ways" are unethical, illegal, immoral or self-defeating.

Nice to know just what kind of a company you think we're dealing with.

Not every company worships "Greed is Good/God", and in the long run it won't serve them well if they do. It didn't work all that well for Mr. Gekko, now did it? ...and yes, I realize he was a fictional character, but surely you don't want a list of the real "perps" in our corporate world....we don't have near enough bandwidth to go into the "truth is stranger than fiction" discussion.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

> ...they take out the floor mats, tell you that the floor mats were on a "free preview", and that it costs $5 a month to get them back.


Has it actually come to this where some of us are equating D* to car dealerships who we all know have abysmal reputations.

If I were Malone or whoever the D* big cheese is and, providing this whole sordid affair wasn't being done precisely at my directions, I'd immediately call in my top lieutenants and in a forceful clenched teeth way say this:



> You guys and gals have exactly one week or 7 days to unrile D* subs by defusing this situation and getting it out of the courts. If by next Wednesday this hasn't happened, I'll be picking some new lieutenants!


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Bravo!...we should be so lucky to see that kind of leadership demonstrated. I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Bill Johnson said:


> Has it actually come to this where some of us are equating D* to car dealerships who we all know have abysmal reputations.


The whole industry is like a bunch of used car dealers. Their advertising, customer service, pricing is a mix of used cars (low ball ads) and the cell phone industry (myriad of confusing plans and options).


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Putting aside the merit of HDNet's case against DirecTV, which I have to reserve my opinion on until facts of the contract etc are available (though at first glance, I don't blame HDNet for what they are doing)......

Wow. Just wow.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me the "riled customers" we seem to hearing from are people who are thinking that DirecTV is lying, cheating, stealing and just generally underhandedly trying to make a buck on their backs.

Six months ago, this discussion (of the HD Extra pack and how "unethical" it is) did not exist. Six months from now, I think it will no longer exist.

DirecTV is going through a HUGE changed with regard to the programming they are offering - specifically, HD programming. Lots of new subs signing up (if you believe some reports and no - I don't have numbers, nor any "linky?"), but it should almost be common knowledge that their subscriber base will experience some growth as it relates to the new wave of HD. Receivers are more in the 'demand' side than the 'supply' side than they were just a few months ago.

The way I see this is D* is positioning themselves with a whole new (or maybe better stated - widely expanded) programming offering. They need to package/repackage this in a way that makes sense to them financially and allows the addition of new HD offerings at a minimum of reshuffling in the future. To do that they differentiate (aside from a couple of channels that are going to be argued about - namely, the HDNet pair and Discovery HD Theater) between HD programming that is basically a mirroring of particular channels' SD offerings - HD 'equivalents' - and those channels that are HD only and don't have SD broadcast equivalents. Almost in the sense of a separate Premium Channel.

As more of those exclusively HD channels are added (if any), I would expect them to be added to the HD Extra Pack. Additions of HDs with SD equivalents, like those added this morning, will be under the umbrella of the HD Access.

There has to be a transition period. This is that transition period. I do not take any of what is transpiring right now personally. DirecTV is changing their product offering. Do I want it? Then I pay for it (come Dec 15th). If I don't want it or don't want to pay the $5 it will cost me for it? Then I don't subscribe to it, just like HBO isn't worth it for me to subscribe to.

I've been paying the $9.99 for years now for the limited HD that was available. Now that $9.99 is buying me an awful lot more. I NEVER felt that DirecTV had promised me that I would always get all of their HD offerings (including channels that I had been 'paying for' all along) for $9.99. And you know what? Given all the additional channels I AM now getting for that same $9.99, I'm not gonna get my undies in a bunch because some of what I got before is now going to be put in a package that I would have to pay more for.

I've read the T&C section where it states that DirecTV may change it's programming at any time as they see fit. I agreed to that. And they are doing some of that now, and I, as a customer, must decide what's right for me.

I certainly don't see this all as deceptive and unethical. For me to feel that way, I would have to feel that DirecTV has more than just a business relationship with me - and that's all it is is business. They are not 'out to get me' or steal my money.

Just Wow.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> I've read the T&C section where it states that DirecTV may change it's programming at any time as they see fit. I agreed to that. And they are doing some of that now, and I, as a customer, must decide what's right for me.


Yup .. from The DIRECTV Terms and Conditions (under General Legal)


> Programming, pricing, terms and conditions subject to change.


and from The Customer Agreement 1(d)


> Many changing considerations affect the availability, cost and quality of programming and customer demand for it. Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, re-arrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time.


----------



## RVD26 (Oct 12, 2007)

I don't have too much of a problem with the increased cost for the HD Extra Package myself
However, the only channel in that package that I even care for is MHD
A $5 increase for all the new HD channels that we have received (including new ones just today) seems fair to me
Be thankful you're not a cable customer and paying up to $30 more for just a couple of new HD channels


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Bertrude said:


> And even as of today, that's all you would need to add. Officially, no one has to subscribe to the HD Extra Pack to receive these channels until after Dec 15th, and the FAQ has already been updated to reflect that, in advance of that launch. Stating that the fact that this wasn't reflected on Directv's website 3 months prior to the launch is a 'lie' is a bit of an overstatement.


Not at all when the website clearly stated there would be no additional charges beyond a Premier subscription and HD Access to get "All the HD channels" (while pointing out that the exception to that was the sports specialty packages like NFL ST), and then as they continued to tell that lie, they sold people HD receivers and locked them into two year commitments.

It was a lie because DirecTV knew that their statements on their website were false. We know that the plans for the HD Extra package were already made because they had been leaked here where they were discussed at length... all while the DirecTV website continued to lie that they had no plans to do what they did shortly thereafter.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

hasan said:


> Thanks for the "heads up" Mr. Gekko.  Misinformation/Dis-information/WiggleRoom Communications...all justified by the bottom-line. They have a duty to make the most money they can....but not any way they can. Some of the "ways" are unethical, illegal, immoral or self-defeating.
> *I agree that they should not make money illegally. Ethics, morals, and an overly short-term view (which is what I take it you mean by "self-defeating") are much more difficult to define. One man's misleading statement is another's "clever advertising". Companies have been doing that right-on-the-line stuff for too long for reasonable people to feign being shocked by it.*
> 
> Nice to know just what kind of a company you think we're dealing with.
> ...


I certainly didn't raise the cartoonish Gordon Gekko as a standard bearer for anything, so I won't address your comments regarding him. As for the real world "perps", most of them I'd imagine you would name committed criminal acts; I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Every publicly-traded, for-profit company most certainly does answer to the shareholders for their bottom line and, outside of being required to follow the law, not much else. D* does and should act in the interests of their shareholders, not their customers. Happily for us customers, the interests of their shareholders often (almost always if you take a long enough view) intersect with those of their customers.

All I'm saying is that no one should be surprised when a company tries to make money. We also shouldn't be surpised when they spin everything as positively as they can and when they speak less than precisely to give themselves manuevering room.

I've yet to see any definitive proof that D* promised not to raise prices on HD channel. Even if someone with the authority to make such a statement did so, for how long did you all think that "promise" was good? If you think about it for even a second, you can't think that they meant forever. If you accept that premise, when would it have been OK for them to raise prices?


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

oakwcj said:


> Even if you've never opted IN? Now, that would be Orwellian. I'm in a "free preview" for channels I already get. I expect DirecTV to take HDNET, HDNET Movies, and UHD away from me on December 15. I don't expect to be billed extra for them without my express request. According to the DirecTV mailing a few weeks ago:
> 
> "DirecTV HD Extra Pack [Free Preview until 12/15]*
> 
> *Add DirecTV HD Extra Pack to your current plan for only $4.99 per month."


I had to call to opt in. I didn't want to miss Torchwood or an NHL game because I forgot to call on the 15th.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I've read the T&C section where it states that DirecTV may change it's programming at any time as they see fit. I agreed to that. And they are doing some of that now, and I, as a customer, must decide what's right for me.


That doesn't make it right to make false statements to potential customers that they weren't going to do what they clearly already planned to do so.

It's not about if the pricing of the resulting packages is fair or appropriate or still cheaper and a better deal than cable, it's about DirecTV specifically promising potential customers that they had no plans to do what we now know they were planning to do. There actions were shady, deceptive, and simply.... a lie.

If the HD Extra package doesn't go away as a result of the HDNet lawsuit or at least get grandfathered in for customers who had the original HD package, I suspect that there will also be a class action lawsuit against DirecTV for their deceptive marketing practices.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

cartrivision said:


> If the HD Extra package doesn't go away as a result of the HDNet lawsuit or at least get grandfathered in for customers who had the original HD package, I suspect that there will also be a class action lawsuit against DirecTV for their deceptive marketing practices.


LOL!! 

If I had a nickel for every time someone figured there would be a class action lawsuit against DirecTV for this, that or the other thing, I'd be a Titanium subscriber!

Since the sqeaky wheel gets the grease, let me ask you this question. If you had been doing your research and the web site stated that three months from now (six months, whenever it was you were doing your research) they would take a half-dozen channels, a few of which were currently viewable if you pay for HD Access, and moved them to another package along with some new HD only channels, which provider would you have gone with? And if you still would have opted for DirecTV and come March the HD Access option goes up from $9.99 to $10.99 (a hypothetical people, don't start throwing yourselves out of windows! ), would you still be playing the "but they promised they wouldn't raise the price of HD" card?

Out of curiosity, which of the HD Extra Pack channels means enough to you to talk class action lawsuits?

Again, Wow!


----------



## JonVig (Sep 23, 2007)

GOD BLESS AMERICA... RIGHT???

So everybody's issue is that D* is going to break a few channels with less than desirable content off and charge $5 a month for those that want to keep them. Right?

So if they instead just increased everyones base package price by $5 per month and did not call it a "HD X-tra Package" everyone would be cool! That's ridiculous. I like having the choice. As far as I am concerned, they should ala cart all of the programming and channels and let us pick only what we want to watch.


----------



## PANCHITO (Apr 8, 2006)

Since D* is going to raise prices $5.00 a month for HD channels that I have,and I don't want to to pay it can I just cancel my service without pay the penalty of my contract.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

PANCHITO said:


> Since D* is going to raise prices $5.00 a month for HD channels that I have,and I don't want to to pay it can I just cancel my service without pay the penalty of my contract.


No. Even if DTV raises their rates, you must honor your programming commitment or pay the early termination penalties.


----------



## scotch27 (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm not quite sure why anyone expects to believe what D*, or any company for that matter, has to say. So D* said they weren't raising the price. For how long? forever? at some point in time this was going to happen, so why not 2 months after we get the new HD crap. Pay more for new stuff, or get something taken away and having to pay extra to get it back - what the difference?

This is what I've come to expect from every company I do business with. The people that are offended by this are also the people who think its dirty to try and get a better deal for less, or threaten to cancel service if not. Thats the way it works. Its nice to talk about the "old days" when people and companies were fair, and "Baseball players aren't the same as they used to be", and remember the world series at 3pm on a wednesday, and...whatever. everyone's first mistake is to believe what D* has to say - ever !! the 2nd mistake is thinking it won't happen again.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

KurtV said:


> I certainly didn't raise the cartoonish Gordon Gekko as a standard bearer for anything, so I won't address your comments regarding him. As for the real world "perps", most of them I'd imagine you would name committed criminal acts; I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
> 
> Every publicly-traded, for-profit company most certainly does answer to the shareholders for their bottom line and, outside of being required to follow the law, not much else. D* does and should act in the interests of their shareholders, not their customers. Happily for us customers, the interests of their shareholders often (almost always if you take a long enough view) intersect with those of their customers.
> 
> ...


First of all, I don't care if they raise the base price for HD access or create a new tier or not. Based on the channels offered in HDExtra, I'll give them my money. It didn't disturb me in the least that they need to recover some money for their HD offerings.

What does bother me is the "bad smell in the air" from how they are doing it/communicating about it. I am further bothered by the robber baron capitalists who venerate distorting/lying/manipulating or otherwise attempting to be less than forthright and candid with their customers. Lying involves the intent to deceive. You call it being clever. We simply have different values.

The fact that this has become acceptable in both business and government is a sad commentary on *us*.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hasan said:


> First of all, I don't care if they raise the base price for HD access or create a new tier or not. Based on the channels offered in HDExtra, I'll give them my money. It didn't disturb me in the least that they need to recover some money for their HD offerings.
> 
> What does bother me is the "bad smell in the air" from how they are doing it/communicating about it. I am further bothered by the robber baron capitalists who venerate distorting/lying/manipulating or otherwise attempting to be less than forthright and candid with their customers. Lying involves the intent to deceive. You call it being clever. We simply have different values.
> 
> The fact that this has become acceptable in both business and government is a sad commentary on *us*.


hasan,

I'm afraid to say I'm going to have to agree with you completely. I think that's twice in one day we agree...tripling our previous total 

It's even sadder that people "appreciate" these forms of deceit.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Ken S said:


> hasan,
> 
> I'm afraid to say I'm going to have to agree with you completely. I think that's twice in one day we agree...tripling our previous total
> 
> It's even sadder that people "appreciate" these forms of deceit.


I've never regarded any of our differences of opinion as "fundamental" in nature. Most people (including the two of us) agree to a set of well established facts more often than we don't. When we don't we can disagree respectfully.

I find as long as I don't get too wound up, common ground is not that difficult to discover.

BTW, I agree with a LOT more of your posts than I have commented on. There's only so much time in a day, and a horse can only take so much of a beating.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

hasan said:


> What does bother me is the "bad smell in the air" from how they are doing it/communicating about it. I am further bothered by the robber baron capitalists who venerate distorting/lying/manipulating or otherwise attempting to be less than forthright and candid with their customers. Lying involves the intent to deceive. You call it being clever. We simply have different values.


If D* had made the decision to do what they're doing with the HD Extra Pack and not said A THING about it, then on December 15th/16th slapped a $4.99 charge on everyone's account, I may be much more inclined to agree with the "distorting/lying/manipulating/etc." talk being thrown around here.

However, I AM much more inclined to agree with the "how long did you expect they wouldn't increase prices?" school of thought. I think all of us figured that when they added all the HD that was being talked about, there would be an increase in prices; and believing there wouldn't be - even if people interpretted DirecTV's words as "promises" not to - is a little unrealistic.

Truth is, we have all been aware for several weeks, if not longer, that DirecTV is moving some channels into a newly created "HD Extra Pack" and that it will cost $4.99 more for that as of December 15th - and we heard about that by DirecTV communicating that! In my book, this is not being sprung upon us unsuspecting dupes and we have plenty of time to process it and determine how we feel about it and how we will act on it.

This whole ascibing unethical motives to DirecTV for conducting business as they have been seems like a pretty over-the-top reaction to me. But, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> However, I AM much more inclined to agree with the "how long did you expect they wouldn't increase prices?" school of thought. I think all of us figured that when they added all the HD that was being talked about, there would be an increase in prices; and believing there wouldn't be - even if people interpretted DirecTV's words as "promises" not to - is a little unrealistic.
> 
> Truth is, we have all been aware for several weeks, if not longer, that DirecTV is moving some channels into a newly created "HD Extra Pack" and that it will cost $4.99 more for that as of December 15th - and we heard about that by DirecTV communicating that! In my book, this is not being sprung upon us unsuspecting dupes and we have plenty of time to process it and determine how we feel about it and how we will act on it.


Hello fellow Viking fan/supporter/co-miserator!

In general I agree with your comments except for the fact that D* stated publically that they were not raising rates when they deployed the new HD channels. They are taking two channels which we previously received and moving them to a "tier" that they will charge everyone who continues to subscribe $4.99/mo. Granted, they added a LOT of channels, but they are also charging more for every subscriber who wants to continue receiving all of the HD channels that the did prior to Sept 1. To me that's a price increase and contrary to their public statements.

Personally, I was expecting the $9.99 to continue until around March-May of next year at which point I figured they would increase prices. D*, however seems to be taking the track that HD access is a "technology fee" and that the programming is included in your programming package. This certainly is a change in policy regarding the structure of HD programming (or at a minimum customer perception).


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

hasan said:


> First of all, I don't care if they raise the base price for HD access or create a new tier or not. Based on the channels offered in HDExtra, I'll give them my money. It didn't disturb me in the least that they need to recover some money for their HD offerings.
> 
> What does bother me is the "bad smell in the air" from how they are doing it/communicating about it. I am further bothered by the robber baron capitalists who venerate distorting/lying/manipulating or otherwise attempting to be less than forthright and candid with their customers. Lying involves the intent to deceive. You call it being clever. We simply have different values.
> 
> The fact that this has become acceptable in both business and government is a sad commentary on *us*.


I'm not saying it's OK to lie or to attempt to deceive. I'm saying that, from what I've seen here, their "promises" were far from definitive; people read into those statements what they wanted to. The statements were vague. Probably intentionally so. I'm further saying that we shouldn't be surprised when companies do that. (I could be wrong about the nature of their "promises", but no one has yet stepped forward with the incriminating statements to correct me).

Do I wish it were otherwise? Sure. I wish everyone was always as forthright as the day is long. Do I think that's going to happen? With corporations? Not a chance. Is that a sad commentary on "us"? Maybe so, but it is as it always has been. You make that point yourself when you compare present day corporations to the robber barons of 150+ years ago.


----------



## dlocks (Sep 24, 2007)

Does the highlighted quote indicate 2 hd tiers
From tv predictions
"It's hard to see how this represents an increase when customers will continue to pay the $9.99 access fee that allows them to receive DIRECTV's HD technology and all channels broadcast in HD that are tied to their respective base programming package," he said. "Once the HD Extra tier preview ends in mid-December, customers will have the option of taking the package, or not. That we moved three channels from our regular HD lineup into the Xtra tier hardly represents an 'HD price increase/' Arguably they pay a little extra if they want those three channels back, but that's their option."


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

It's a sad commentary on US if we find the behavior acceptable, and do nothing to resist it.

A very wise man once said:

If you see injustice, it is your duty to stop it with your hand.
If you cannot stop it with your hand, then use your tongue to speak out against it.
If you cannot speak out against it, *at least* hold it as abhorrent in your heart , for that is the least of faith.

This is the exact opposite of "everybody does it, what's the big deal" , or "that's how businesses operate"

I agree with the sage, others will do what they wish.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

My problem with this entire Extra pack situation is the way Directv went about it in a Comcast - Sandvinegate manner.

Not a fan of having semantics thrown down my throat, and expected not to know it. I'm likely to pay for the additional channels, just wanted to be dealt with in a straightforward manner.

I don't recall a thread, but was there any discussion on the change of the verbiage of the HD Package to HD Access?.....that was our first clue.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

I read this online this morning:

HDNet Wins Temporary Order Vs. DIRECTV
The high-def network is trying to stop DIRECTV from moving it to a more expensive programming tier.
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (November 14, 2007) -- A U.S. District Court has granted HDNet's request for a temporary restraining order to prevent DIRECTV from moving it to a new programming package.

That's according to an article by Multichannel News.

HDNet and its sister network, HDNet Movies, are now available to all DIRECTV high-def owners who pay $9.99 a month. 

However, on December 15, the satcaster plans to move Universal HD and the two HDNet networks to a new programming package called "DIRECTV HD Extra Pack," which will require an additional $4.99 a month.

HDNet this month filed a lawsuit against DIRECTV to block the plan, saying it would destroy the network because fewer viewers would watch it. The company, which was co-founded by Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, asked the court for temporary and permanent restraining orders to stop the DIRECTV plan.

Multichannel News reports that U.S. District Court Judge Teresa Snelson agreed with HDNet that it "will probably suffer imminent and irreparable harm because of a loss of customers, irreparable damage to its goodwill, programming and business unless this temporary restraining order is entered."

The TRO runs through December 10, but the court scheduled a December 7 hearing on HDNet's request for a permanent injunction. If the permanent injunction is granted, DIRECTV would be forced to keep HDNet in its basic $9.99 HD programming package


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

There's an entire thread devoted to the TRO.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

hasan said:


> It's a sad commentary on US if we find the behavior acceptable, and do nothing to resist it.
> 
> A very wise man once said:
> 
> ...


I agree with you that people should stand against deceptive practices and lying by corporations, but the devil's in the details. I'm not convinced that D* crossed the line to misleading, deceiving, or lying. What statements, specifically, were misleading?

I'm more than willing to be convinced, but all I've seen presented in this thread as D*s "promise" not to raise HD package costs are some fairly vague comments from a Q1 conference call with the CEO (see below). The CEO's statement is a long way from a promise. Anyone who took that as a guarantee against price increases needs to go back to English class.

I have not said, "everybody does it, what's the big deal". I also haven't said, "that's how businesses operate" in the context your post implies. I am saying no one should be shocked at what D* has done with pricing and tiers with regard to HD programming and that there's a difference between lying and what Carey has done (to my limited knowledge).

Beyond all that, the marketplace is volatile. Any prediction has to be taken with a grain of salt. Even statements made with the purest intent will often turn out to be wrong. As you said earlier, lying requires intent.

Maybe I'm putting too fine a point on it, but different words mean different things. Manslaughter isn't murder, war isn't genocide, and being vague (or mistaken) isn't lying.

Chase Carey: "I think in terms of pricing, it is probably -- essentially, we've got a $10 price to the package and we don't have plans to change that. So from a pricing perspective, the addition of the channels is not going to change what we do today with the product."


----------



## donshan (Jun 18, 2007)

Yes, D* has the right to "change prices and terms at any time", but it isn't always good business sense to do so. This HD Extra pack has caused a lot of controversy, hard feelings, extra complexity, confusion, and now a lawsuit.

It would have been simpler had D* simply said " T*he HD access fee is required to activate the HD channels on DirecTV included in the programing package that you subscribe to and also adds an extra block of HD channels to that package . Effective immediately this HD access fee is $14.95 for new customers. Existing HD access customers will be grandfathered at $9.99 until D11 is launched and the the first round of new HD channels from D11 are launched in 2008. As of that monthly billing, the price for HD access to all customers goes up to $14.95.*

Since the total number of HD channels in the various program packages goes up as you buy more expensive program packages and add sports and movie packages ( Premiere gets everything), you would also get more HD for your HD access fee by buying more and bigger packages. This is exactly what makes money for D*. The channels in the current HD pack don't have to be included in the minimum price any program package unless the customer adds HD access, but they get them all when they add the one HD access fee. Makes business sense to me and is easy to understand. D* always has the option to waive the HD access fee for some number of months as part of a new customer HD promotion.

I would gladly pay $14.95 for 100+ HD channels- Just make the pricing clear, one thing to understand, and one item on the bill. I pay the HD access fee and get HD, others reduce their bill by $14.95 and get SD.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

It's not whether they said they would increase the cost or not. It has to do with honesty and integrity. If they want/need to charge more for the HD channels, then charge more. Don't take away channels and then charge to get them back. The way they are doing it is a little underhanded. Of course, I would be willing to bet that this is just the first increase in price. I am sure that the HD "technology access fee" will be raised soon to cover the cost of adding the new channels. I also would be willing to bet that within 6 months, the cost of the current HD package(with the extra channels) will be at least $20 a month. I have seen to many companies go down this road (cell phone companies in particular).

Slick, slimy, B.S.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Upstream said:


> No. Even if DTV raises their rates, you must honor your programming commitment or pay the early termination penalties.


You can change packages at any time, I believe. So I can't cancel the whole D* but I can cancel a package and not pay the termination - I believe.

I guess I feel that I shouldn't have to pay extra for what I was getting before as part of a package. Whether it is worth it or not paying $5 for a small number of channels vs 10 for 100+ doesn't make logical sense. Considering the small number of months between 12/15 and the normal March price increase I think they would have just been better off raising prices (HD) in March and eliminate the duplication of multiple packages.
The other potential here based upon the fight between hdnet and D* is that D* wants to show hdnet that no one really wants their package.

In general it is getting too expensive. I don't watch 3/4 of what I get today and adding more things that I don't watch seems pointless. 
With all the other price increases these days it may come to gas to get to work or 10 stations that I occasionally watch and if they hadn't been there I wouldn't miss them.


----------



## jgriffin7 (Feb 16, 2007)

HDNet wins temporary restraining order against DirecTV


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

CTJon said:


> You can change packages at any time, I believe. So I can't cancel the whole D* but I can cancel a package and not pay the termination - I believe.


You can change packages as you suggest, but the programming commitment that lessees are under requires that you subscribe to at least the Family Package. Failure to maintain your commitment will win you an early termination fee.

Note that you cannot change packages willy-nilly without consequence. If you don't keep a package for at least a month, there will likely be a programming change fee.


----------



## squawk (Mar 5, 2006)

The long debate along this thread seems to miss the issue regarding the HD Extra Package. It's not that DirecTV is "changing" its pricing, but that it has chosen to move several HD-only channels (HDNet, HDMovies, UHD) onto a new tier,along with certain newly launched channels (MGM, MHD & SmithsonianHD) & charge additional $$$ for it.

Pursuant to the Term & Conditions of the Subscriber Agreement, DirecTV can choose anytime, with reasonable notice, to remove certain channels from a subscriber's package & move to an additionally priced tier. This is where I sense this debate is focused, but it shouldn't, as there's no debate. Like it or not, DirecTV can do this.

The debate should be focused beyond this tug of war. One area is the impact of this decision upon Cuban's investment in HDNet & its existing contract with DirecTV. Second, is the subscriber's right to choose NOT TO SUBSCRIBE to the HD Extra Package. The latter will send a clear signal to DirecTV that Mercer's "brilliant" idea, is not so brilliant, & in-fact, downright dumb.

I agree with earlier comments that if anything this decision should NOT have been made so soon after the launch of a very long awaited expanded HD programming. If DirecTV's intent is to generate revenue growth, it might have been a better strategy to raise the existing HD pricing by $1, to $10.99, which was the original price of the HD package a couple years ago.

In sum, one just has to wonder what was Mercer thinking when he conceived his "brilliant" idea. JMO.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

squawk said:


> The long debate along this thread seems to miss the issue regarding the HD Extra Package. It's not that DirecTV is "changing" its pricing, but that it has chosen to move several HD-only channels (HDNet, HDMovies, UHD) onto a new tier,along with certain newly launched channels (MGM, MHD & SmithsonianHD) & charge additional $$$ for it.
> 
> Pursuant to the Term & Conditions of the Subscriber Agreement, DirecTV can choose anytime, with reasonable notice, to remove certain channels from a subscriber's package & move to an additionally priced tier. This is where I sense this debate is focused, but it shouldn't, as there's no debate. Like it or not, DirecTV can do this.


Sure, D* can do it. Like it or not, we can still complain as to why, and whether it's in D* long term best interest.

I'm going to pony up for the new service. But, I can still sympathize with those that are really hacked.

Food and HGTV's HD channels are not the same programming as their SDs. Using D* current nomenclature, that should put them into the HD Extra Package, too.

I'm NOT saying they should. But, that will be something that HDNet, is sure to point out.


----------



## John in Georgia (Sep 24, 2006)

Think I'll wait to see what actually happens before making a decision.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

KurtV said:


> I agree with you that people should stand against deceptive practices and lying by corporations, but the devil's in the details. I'm not convinced that D* crossed the line to misleading, deceiving, or lying. What statements, specifically, were misleading?
> 
> I'm more than willing to be convinced, but all I've seen presented in this thread as D*s "promise" not to raise HD package costs are some fairly vague comments from a Q1 conference call with the CEO (see below). The CEO's statement is a long way from a promise. Anyone who took that as a guarantee against price increases needs to go back to English class.
> 
> ...


Agreed.

I don't see what the big deal is. At one point apparently D* said they didn't have plans to charge more in the Fall. AFAIK, Falls over. Even if it wasn't, plans change. I don't get mad when McDonalds changes the price of their Big Mac even when they might have told me back in January that they weren't planning any price increases. Things happen. Prices go up. Pay it or don't.

I just got HD access a couple of months ago. When I signed up I knew about all the new HD channels that were a week or so away from being launched and I was told the charge to access them would be $10. I signed up. About 2 or 3 weeks later, I learned that to access some of those channels that I had just gained access to would cost me an additional $5. Was I bitter? No. Did I think D* was deceptive to gain my business and sucker me into a new 2 year agreement? No. I just know how business works and that costs go up. Nothing nefarious about it. They're making a business decision to separate some of the content and charge for it. I'll never hold making a business decision against a company.l


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I don't see what the big deal is. At one point apparently D* said they didn't have plans to charge more in the Fall. AFAIK, Falls over. Even if it wasn't, plans change. I don't get mad when McDonalds changes the price of their Big Mac even when they might have told me back in January that they weren't planning any price increases. Things happen. Prices go up. Pay it or don't.
> 
> I just got HD access a couple of months ago. When I signed up I knew about all the new HD channels that were a week or so away from being launched and I was told the charge to access them would be $10. I signed up. About 2 or 3 weeks later, I learned that to access some of those channels that I had just gained access to would cost me an additional $5. Was I bitter? No. Did I think D* was deceptive to gain my business and sucker me into a new 2 year agreement? No. I just know how business works and that costs go up. Nothing nefarious about it. They're making a business decision to separate some of the content and charge for it. I'll never hold making a business decision against a company.l


What if they took away every channel except PBS and said that it now costs 50% more to get them back, because the original programing fee was just to get access, and now you have to pay extra for the channels you want. If your bill was reaching $200 a month would it still be just a "business decision"? I work hard for my money and watch where I spend every dime so that I can afford things like HDTV.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

As ridiculous as your hypothetical situation is, yes, it would still be a business decision regardless of what my total bill was.

I work hard for my money too. That also has nothing to do with it. Prices go up on EVERYTHING. Businesses change how they do things EVERY DAY. I either keep doing business with them, or I don't.

If that $5 is going to make or break you, I'd suggest not paying it and trying to live without those 5 channels.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

Thaedron said:


> Hello fellow Viking fan/supporter/co-miserator!
> 
> In general I agree with your comments except for the fact that D* stated publically that they were not raising rates when they deployed the new HD channels. They are taking two channels which we previously received and moving them to a "tier" that they will charge everyone who continues to subscribe $4.99/mo. Granted, they added a LOT of channels, but they are also charging more for every subscriber who wants to continue receiving all of the HD channels that the did prior to Sept 1. To me that's a price increase and contrary to their public statements.


Agreed...they are raising their prices 6 days too early since they said "this fall". If they had waited 6 days then it would be winter and they would not be deceiving us.


----------



## jkast (Sep 4, 2007)

I happen to think DirecTV has the best package out there and could have the best future if it gets honest and enthusiastic leadership. I've been a subscriber since 1995.

BUT I am more than fed up with what appears to me to be clearly a dishonest approach to business. Despite the alligation of "lying corporations", it is people who lie, not corporations, and corporations led by people that try to get ahead primarily through deception and deceit frequently go bankrupt, because people remember a betrayal a lot longer than they remember a price increase, and they feel much more angry at the betrayal.

So when DirecTV increases its price for a service, I am unhappy -- but I signed an agreement that said I understood they could do that. When they tell me they are NOT going to increase my price for a service, then 3 months later increase it, I am unhappy at the increase, I am angry at the betrayal. I may have signed an agreement that said they had the right to increase the price, but DirecTV just lied to me by saying they were not going to do so.

Now, if you don't think you've alienated me enough by making me unhappy, then angry, you can always show you have absolute contempt for me by saying that higher bill I am unhappy and angry at isn't a price increase, it's an access fee.

I am a least very happy Mr Cuban has a signed contract that DirecTV is clearly planning to violate. Hopefully, the American Justice system still works well enough for his rights to be upheld and Executives in DirecTV will be forced to act as if they have integrity with respect to that matter. I feel this way even if it causes a small increase in my DirecTV bill.

As I have said before, I believe the behavior of DirecTV is so poor with respect to HDNet (which I very seldom watch) that I would like to see the DirecTV executive who decided to attempt this action in jail.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

I fully expected to pay more for HD at some point. DirecTV made statements that it would "not cost a dime more," which is where the problem lies. In spite of that, I would have preferred they up the price on HD Access (making it somewhere between 12.99 and 14.99) over what they did.

The problem with this half-baked extra tier idea is that price increases are coming next year. Tacking on a dollar or two to one package was expected. Now they have two packages that can be moved up. That is the most troubling part of this.

And by the way, someone mentioned "less desirable channels" being moved to this tier. If that were the criterion, TBS and TNT would be in the extra pack.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> As ridiculous as your hypothetical situation is, yes, it would still be a business decision regardless of what my total bill was.
> 
> I work hard for my money too. That also has nothing to do with it. Prices go up on EVERYTHING. Businesses change how they do things EVERY DAY. I either keep doing business with them, or I don't.
> 
> If that $5 is going to make or break you, I'd suggest not paying it and trying to live without those 5 channels.


It's not going to break me, and I refuse to get those channels. If they had said that the HD access fee was $5 more per month, I would not have cared. It's not just the money, it's the tactics they are using.


----------



## rynberg (Oct 6, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> ...I just got HD access a couple of months ago...


I think your opinion may be different if you had been getting the HD pack for over 3 years like some of us....


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

rynberg said:


> I think your opinion may be different if you had been getting the HD pack for over 3 years like some of us....


From someone who has been paying for HD Access for over three years, I've read what spartanstew has posted and I have to say, I pretty much agree with him.

They repackaged and changed pricing? Ok, that's business. It's happened before and I would bet it will happen again. Slightly different product now, so is it still worth it to me to subscribe? I re-evaluated based on the changes and I'm sticking it out. I'm not going to grumble and complain. I make no claims that they were deceitful or underhanded or are trying to screw me out of MY money!

I really don't think his views are too much different than a lot of people. As it is, those that feel they are being deceived, mocked, ripped-off and whatever else is being said are the ones yelling the loudest. The rest of us are pretty much sitting back, shaking our heads, and laughing our collective asses off! :lol:


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> From someone who has been paying for HD Access for over three years, I've read what spartanstew has posted and I have to say, I pretty much agree with him.
> 
> They repackaged and changed pricing? Ok, that's business. It's happened before and I would bet it will happen again. Slightly different product now, so is it still worth it to me to subscribe? I re-evaluated based on the changes and I'm sticking it out. I'm not going to grumble and complain. I make no claims that they were deceitful or underhanded or are trying to screw me out of MY money!
> 
> I really don't think his views are too much different than a lot of people. As it is, those that feel they are being deceived, mocked, ripped-off and whatever else is being said are the ones yelling the loudest. The rest of us are pretty much sitting back, shaking our heads, and laughing our collective asses off! :lol:


I just wish they would repackage everything and let us pick and choose the channels we want to receive.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Ken S said:


> I just wish they would repackage everything and let us pick and choose the channels we want to receive.


I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to afford doing that. I need the power of the masses to dilute the cost of what I would want to watch.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

At least they aren't raising the HD access fee for everyone by $4.99 forcing customers who don't care about these HD extra channels to pay for them. E* forced all HD customers into paying $20 a month because of the VOOM channels that most customers weren't interested in.

I think the HD Extra package makes sense because it provides channels that are exclusively HD only and probably cost more to carry. The HD Access package is basically the option of getting the HD feed of networks you already receive in your basic package.

I used to think Universal HD was the same thing as Bravo HD but I guess that is not the case. Wasn't it called Bravo HD at first? Now it is its own channel.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

rynberg said:


> I think your opinion may be different if you had been getting the HD pack for over 3 years like some of us....


Perhaps, but I don't think so. Regardless of how long I've had HD, I like the tier they're adding, mainly because I don't plan on paying for it. Now, if they changed the overall package to $12 - $15 and included all the HD, I wouldn't be as happy as I am about the tier (and the ability to not pay that money), but I'd understand and wouldn't complain that my cost went up (even though when I got access a couple of months ago I was told the total cost would only be $10).


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> Perhaps, but I don't think so. Regardless of how long I've had HD, I like the tier they're adding, mainly because I don't plan on paying for it. Now, if they changed the overall package to $12 - $15 and included all the HD, I wouldn't be as happy as I am about the tier (and the ability to not pay that money), but I'd understand and wouldn't complain that my cost went up (even though when I got access a couple of months ago I was told the total cost would only be $10).


I don't have Directv but my dad does. I asked him this evening if he ever watched HDNet and HD Movies and he said no and that he didn't care about getting those anyway. He had been paying the $10 for the HD package several months now.


----------



## love that tv (Jul 8, 2006)

Ive been getting HD package for 2 years now. i have been paying 9.99 for channels they are offering for 4.99 now. which is good for most newcomers, but without many of us paying for this over priced HD, (which is a luxury that i love) direct tv would have never seen the interest gained in HD service to launch new Sat's. like usual, I'm feeling like the customers who get all the new equipment and services free and the old customers get "pooped on!"


----------



## islander66 (Oct 16, 2007)

Now D* has two tiers that BOTH will keep going up in price.

Just like health insurance you don't want to be in the group that gets isolated for the rate increase. You want across the board increase.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I would imagine when DirecTV starts raising prices again (usually around March 1), it won't just be the HD Access & Extra Pack that see increases. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the Extra Pack didn't go up in price and stayed at $4.99. I can see the HD Access fee go up a buck or two. And likely a bit of a bump on package prices as well - though they seem to be at the magical $x9.99 price now and a buck or two bump would put it over that magical mark where people don't really see $69.99 as $70.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

JLucPicard said:


> I would imagine when DirecTV starts raising prices again (usually around March 1), it won't just be the HD Access & Extra Pack that see increases. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the Extra Pack didn't go up in price and stayed at $4.99. I can see the HD Access fee go up a buck or two. And likely a bit of a bump on package prices as well - though they seem to be at the magical $x9.99 price now and a buck or two bump would put it over that magical mark where people don't really see $69.99 as $70.


I think satellite and cable companies are going to have to come up with cheaper package options for subscribers that don't want that many channels. In my opinion, Dish has the best programming package options.

Expanded Basic cable in my area runs about $52 and continues to increase in price. 10 years ago it was only around $35-39.

Due to these price increases and the availability of local stations over the air in HD, I know several people that have cancelled satellite and cable altogether.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Link said:


> Due to these price increases and the availability of local stations over the air in HD, I know several people that have cancelled satellite and cable altogether.


Ahhh - the enlightened few who really don't feel it's a social faux pas to have an antenna on their roof!


----------



## ecdc (Dec 14, 2006)

Sign me in for Hasan's posts (and others) that have articulated the problem quite well. The issue isn't the money; I'll happily pay a few dollars more for this many HD channels. I think it's a bit silly to assume unhappy customers are just cheap whiners. It's the absolutely laughable way it's being handled. Only corporate America could tell me channels I've had for two years are now a "free preview" (wow - free! Lucky me!) and I need to pay more for them in a few weeks - but it's not a price increase!

I love my D* and I won't be leaving anytime soon. But I sure don't have some strange need to defend their every move, no matter how transparent. And this is from someone who'll be paying the five bucks - it's worth it. It's TV - we're not curing cancer here. I'll save my principled outrage for something that matters.

But D* is treating me like I'm stupid. Just tell me how it is: You're getting a lot more service (I am with the new channels) and we're going to charge more. Fair enough. Don't insult me with this absurd "free preview" stunt.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

ecdc said:


> Sign me in for Hasan's posts (and others) that have articulated the problem quite well. The issue isn't the money; I'll happily pay a few dollars more for this many HD channels. I think it's a bit silly to assume unhappy customers are just cheap whiners. It's the absolutely laughable way it's being handled. Only corporate America could tell me channels I've had for two years are now a "free preview" (wow - free! Lucky me!) and I need to pay more for them in a few weeks - but it's not a price increase!
> 
> I love my D* and I won't be leaving anytime soon. But I sure don't have some strange need to defend their every move, no matter how transparent. And this is from someone who'll be paying the five bucks - it's worth it. It's TV - we're not curing cancer here. I'll save my principled outrage for something that matters.
> 
> But D* is treating me like I'm stupid. Just tell me how it is: You're getting a lot more service (I am with the new channels) and we're going to charge more. Fair enough. Don't insult me with this absurd "free preview" stunt.


Well put.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

ecdc said:


> Only corporate America could tell me channels I've had for two years are now a "free preview" (wow - free! Lucky me!) and I need to pay more for them in a few weeks - but it's not a price increase!


It's a re-structuring of their channels. I'm not defending D*, but I don't see what the complaint is. Where did they say it's not a price increase (except for a statement from last January or so)? They're calling it exactly what it is. They're restructuring their packages and some cost more. They do it all the time. The package I currently have doesn't even exist anymore. Why? Because they restructure all the time. They have add on packages all the time.

How would you rather they would have done it? Let you keep those 5 channels for free and charge for others? Why? What's the difference?

No matter what they decided to do: Have a blanket price increase, have a separate tier (or two) that cost extra, only charge for new channels, etc. There'd be the same number of complaints in this forum. The same people complaining about this (and saying it's because of the way they did it), would be complaining no matter how they handled it (and saying the same thing - it's because of the way they're doing it). There's no way D* could win in this situation and D* knows it, just like any other business person would no it. People don't like change. Well, I have news for all of you:

As you go though life, you'll find that change is the only constant.


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” --Dr. Stephen Hawking

"Life...how it differs from the rock." --Anon


----------



## rynberg (Oct 6, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> The package I currently have doesn't even exist anymore.


That may be true for new subscribers but you are grandfathered in....so not a very valid point IMO.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

l8er said:


> "Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change." --Dr. Stephen Hawking


Changing something that has been in place since the beginning so as to virtually invalidate or strand it isn't a sign of intelligence. Paying more for additional compelling content makes sense.

It is possible that the goal is to make the packaging less comparable with that of the competition. In a world of spreadsheets and statistics being used as a basis for comparision to avoid having to digest everything, this probably doesn't make sense. When you look at how many of the arguments here come down to channel count or whether or not a popular SD channel is available in HD (which obviously has little to do with the relative merit of the HD channel), I'm not sure this was an inspired move on the part of DIRECTV.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I would imagine when DirecTV starts raising prices again (usually around March 1), it won't just be the HD Access & Extra Pack that see increases. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the Extra Pack didn't go up in price and stayed at $4.99. I can see the HD Access fee go up a buck or two. And likely a bit of a bump on package prices as well - though they seem to be at the magical $x9.99 price now and a buck or two bump would put it over that magical mark where people don't really see $69.99 as $70.


I would love for my D bill to be down to $70 :lol: But it isn't going to be with all the stuff I have


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

directv 12 yrs: I think a business can price its self right out of business, and I'm on a fixed income and I'm only going to pay but so much for satellite or cable or what ever, I'm not too good to go back to the old antenna now that all tvs has builtin digital tuners and I can get about 40 channels (ota) and a lot of them is hd, and thats without a rotery and all free, with the price of gas and everthing else right with it, just like I said I'm only going to pay so much for tv and it has just about got there.


----------



## carmangary (May 8, 2006)

They should just get rid of the duplicate SD channels and make everyone upgrade to an HD box. They shouldn't even provide SD programming anymore.


----------



## medic4jc7 (May 22, 2007)

As widescreens keep going down in price. And the economy not that great. The TV giants will lower prices even more for the holidays. And D is licking their chops knowing that all new HD subs will take the new HD tier(s). And isnt it only around 2-4 million HD subs out of 12 million subs total they say? JMO


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Dolly said:


> I would love for my D bill to be down to $70 :lol: But it isn't going to be with all the stuff I have


You're obviously not alone. The Average [monthly] Revenue Per User (ARPU) for DIRECTV was $78.79. For those with more than basic DIRECTV services, the $69.99 price point sailed some time ago.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

medic4jc7 said:


> As widescreens keep going down in price. And the economy not that great. The TV giants will lower prices even more for the holidays.


As long as the idea that an HDTV needs to be a flat panel, the price will remain higher and the uptake will be slower.

I still cannot fathom how they can charge a $100+ premium just for having a digital tuner. Look at the price disparity between computer monitors and that of small TVs.


----------



## lman (Dec 21, 2006)

wmj5 said:


> directv 12 yrs: I think a business can price its self right out of business, and I'm on a fixed income and I'm only going to pay but so much for satellite or cable or what ever, I'm not too good to go back to the old antenna now that all tvs has builtin digital tuners and I can get about 40 channels (ota) and a lot of them is hd, and thats without a rotery and all free, with the price of gas and everthing else right with it, just like I said I'm only going to pay so much for tv and it has just about got there.


I'll be thinking along the same lines when my commitment expires. Price increases by DTV will convince me to go elsewhere.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to afford doing that. I need the power of the masses to dilute the cost of what I would want to watch.


Check some real-world ala-carte pricing first. I'm sure there are circumstances where it could cost more, but once, again...ala carte wouldn't prevent companies from selling package deals as well.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

wmj5 said:


> directv 12 yrs: I think a business can price its self right out of business, and I'm on a fixed income and I'm only going to pay but so much for satellite or cable or what ever, I'm not too good to go back to the old antenna now that all tvs has builtin digital tuners and I can get about 40 channels (ota) and a lot of them is hd, and thats without a rotery and all free, with the price of gas and everthing else right with it, just like I said I'm only going to pay so much for tv and it has just about got there.


A lot of people feel the same way. Satellite and cable are going to have to offer more affordable options for people who don't care about paying for a lot of channels. Our bills continue to go up for channels many don't care about. I mainly watch local network stations plus maybe 10 satellite channels and that's it--yet I have to endure price increases each year for channel additions I don't care about.

In offering this HD Extra Pack, Directv is giving the subscriber the option of whether it wants those extra channels or not rather than forcing all HD subscribers to get a $5.00 increase. I think it's better for the consumer by offering the extra package.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Dolly said:


> I would love for my D bill to be down to $70 :lol: But it isn't going to be with all the stuff I have


Oh, trust me Dolly - that example was just that - an example! My 'programming package' may be $69.99, but add the PP and 9 additional DVRs (luckily I am still under the lifetime DVR fee) and I haven't seen a bill for $70 in years!


----------



## ecdc (Dec 14, 2006)

> It's a re-structuring of their channels. I'm not defending D*, but I don't see what the complaint is. Where did they say it's not a price increase (except for a statement from last January or so)? They're calling it exactly what it is. They're restructuring their packages and some cost more. They do it all the time. The package I currently have doesn't even exist anymore. Why? Because they restructure all the time. They have add on packages all the time.
> 
> How would you rather they would have done it? Let you keep those 5 channels for free and charge for others? Why? What's the difference?
> 
> ...


I don't have any problem with change or the price increase - I've already said that. While you may be right (though I'm not convinced) that there'd be complaints regardless, I wouldn't be among them if they'd handled it like I'd outlined. I'm paying for a service. If that service gets a lot better (and I believe it did with the new HD channels) then I can expect to pay more. If I am dissatisfied with the service, I can always leave. In this particular case, I'm more than satisfied, and would pay more.

I get that plenty of people will always complain about their money, no matter what. But I'm not one of them. Cheapskates are one of my big pet peeves (it's just money, people!) I already pay over $120 a month to D*; if I'm really that worried about $5 more, then I've got a lot bigger problems than TV. But I think to a certain extent, it's a myth that companies face a lose-lose situation with price increases. Sure no one likes paying more money - I'd happily pay $0 for D* every month. But most consumers understand that they're paying money and getting something in return. So long as consumers and providers think it's a fair balance, I think most people are happy to pay. What puts people off are the myriad of surcharges (often cloaked as taxes), extra fees, penalties, and every other way companies dream up to wring one last dollar out of consumer's pockets. The pressure on companies to increase revenue every year is ludicrous. IMO (and I'm no economist) the day will come when the market is so saturated and consumers so strapped and in debt, that it'll all come crashing down.

As for the "restructuring," I don't necessarily mind that, either, depending on how it's handled. If it's because D* has so many more channels and it'll be easier for consumers to understand, sure. But we all know that's not the case. Channel packages are restructured as a way to eek out more money. Someone already noted that our world is decided by charts and pie graphs. A restructuring most likely only comes after a marketing presentation in a board room somewhere with PowerPoint slides saying that if we labeled our channels X, and then charged Y, we'd increase revenue by 3.65% over our current intake.

Restructure channels all you want. Charge what you want. If it comes to the point where I'm not happy, I'll leave. In the meantime, again, I just hate being treated like I'm stupid, and that's what D* is doing. Don't come up with some Twilight Zone "free preview" arrangement where I suddenly don't have channels I've always had, but now I get to preview them.


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

lwilli201 said:


> Would someone please post a link or something that confirms that D* promised not to increase the cost of HD programming.


DIRECTV Q2 2007 Earnings Conference Call Transcript
_• ... Between now and year end, the HD DVR box cost will decrease about $100 per box. _
_• ... We will launch with an HD package with over 70 channels around the end of the third quarter. _
_• ... between the end of the third quarter and the end of the year, we'll get to the 100 channels that we talked about._
_• ... the launch of our initial VOD offer in the fall._
_• ... SAC [Subscriber Acquisition Cost] will still be in our $650 to $700 band _
_• ... We announced today a new $1 billion buy-back [shares, on top of the earlier $1B buyback]_
_*• ... we will not have a programming cost increase related to HD.*_
_• ... We'll have the capacity around the end of the third quarter if the satellite comes online to do 100 channels. _

DIRECTV Q1 2007 Earnings Conference Call Transcript 
_• ...DIRECTV-11 is scheduled to be in service the first half of next year. _
_• ...a customer will be able to browse and schedule recordings when away from home..._
_• ...We are going to have thousands of titles available...]most of them are broadband... _
_• ...in [the] summer we will have boxes that will have broadband capability that will be able to deliver video from websites onto your TV or your PC._
*• ...we've got a $10 price to the [HD] package and we don't have plans to change that.
*_• ...we are going to be moving continuously to...set-top boxes that feeds multiple TVs or a set-top box that integrates multiple devices in the home. _
_• That will all be part of what we will be launching, as well as services like being able to program a DVR from your office on the web or from a cell phone._

_- Craig_


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

Milominderbinder2 said:


> DIRECTV Q2 2007 Earnings Conference Call Transcript
> ..._*• ... we will not have a programming cost increase related to HD.*_
> ... [/I]
> 
> ...


1. The first thing you quote, from the Q2 call, is about D*'s programming costs, not prices for the consumer. He's saying that they're not going to be paying more for HD than they were for SD from the providers. This has nothing to do with the price we pay D* for service.

2. The second thing you quote, from the Q1 call, is not a promise and couldn't possibly be considered one by any reasonable standard. They said that, at that time, they didn't have plans to increase the HD package price. They didn't say they never would. They also didn't say they wouldn't repackage/re-tier some things. Some may say they were being disingenuous when they made this statement. I have no way of knowing either way. By and large, though, companies are pretty careful about what they say to investors, analysts, and regulators.

3. These conference calls are between D* and shareholders and analysts. They're not intended to be communication between D* and its customers. It's public information so we're free to "listen in", but it's easy to get the wrong impression unless you view the information through that lens.

4. Almost the first thing said in those conference calls is:

"on this call, we make statements that may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to be materially different from those expressed or implied by the relevant forward-looking statements..."

In other words, we're not promising anything, things can, do, and will change.

Looks like the "promise" is just an urban legend.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Of course it wasn't a promise, but the statements were misleading to say the least.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

While I'm never happy with a price increase, I'm not calling for a class-action lawsuit on this issue.

As far as I can tell, D* never promised to never, ever, no-matter-what, raise the price for HD. I did read a line in the thread about there being "no plan" to increase. In the world of big business, plans can be forced to change after one meeting and D*'s customer agreement acknowledges that possibility. And it's not unusual for channels to move in and out of packages.

After scanning through the complaints, it seems there's a good number of customers (not all) that will not get the HD Extra package because they feel deceived, not because of the actual cost. It's as though they'd happily pay the extra money if a price increase was announced earlier. I find that odd. D* is not a stupid company. They know that planning a price increase while saying otherwise would be NOTHING but a PR nightmare...and that's bad for business. I was hoping to be grandfathered in but I didn't hold out much hope to receive so many new channels without a bump in price.

When the HD pack first became available several years back, I was paying $10/month for, what, 4 channels? And if I had any feelings of being ripped off, it was paying a premium price for a channel like HDNet that also showed commercials but I accepted that as what it takes to support a new new HD network.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Of course it wasn't a promise, but the statements were misleading to say the least.


Which one? This one: "we've got a $10 price to the [HD] package and we don't have plans to change that"?

It's only misleading if they did indeed have plans to increase the price, which we have no way of knowing.

I hate these kinds of discussions because focusing on semantics tends to trivialize things, but words mean things and accusing people of lying and bad faith is a fairly serious accusation.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

D* still claims they haven't raised rates. They have said that adding a second tier doesn't constitute a price increase, even if, to keep some of the channels customers had before, people have to pay more.


----------



## ironcol (Nov 18, 2007)

paulsown said:


> You know, I have read through all of this and I can't help but think one thing- I have had a package of HD channels that I paid $9.99 a month for for about 2 years. Now, after the long promised (and hyped but slowly delivered) new channels show up, they decide to charge more for channels that I have had all along. The best part- THEY SEND ME AN ADVERTISEMENT IN THE MAIL BRAGGING ABOUT HOW GREAT IT IS.
> 
> I don't know anything about how this all works, how satellites work, or how the channels are placed into packages. All I know is that they are removing channels and then charging me more to get them.
> 
> It doesn't seem right to me, and I don't care what the rationale is.:nono2: It ranks right up there with paying $300 for the "right" to pay $5 a month for a receiver.


Agree - it's one thing to add additional HD channels and tier them - but to take channels we already have and tier them is wrong !!!!


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

ironcol said:


> Agree - it's one thing to add additional HD channels and tier them - but to take channels we already have and tier them is wrong !!!!


I pay well over $100 a month and have been for a long time. The money is not the issue for me. Of course everyone knows that companies have the right to change rates at any time for any reason. The problem isn't just this one occurance, its the pattern that is developing with DirecTV and its integrity regarding communication with its customers. Any statements from DirecTV or anyone representing them have to now be carefully parsed word by word - brought on by their "semantics" and careful choice of words. I, (foolishly I'll admit), actually expected 70 HD channels that were currently broadcasting high def content, not that some time in the future they may broadcast some. The ad should have said 70 "HD-capable" channels so idiots like me wouldn't be expecting unrealistic results.

Someone in DirecTV should wise up and start being a little more straightforward in their dealings. They have plenty of money, they don't need to act like that. I don't particularly like being associated with a company that I have to carefully study and research any statement they make. But hey, they've got their hook in me with the Sunday Ticket so I have to take it. But I don't have to like it.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

man_rob said:


> D* still claims they haven't raised rates. They have said that adding a second tier doesn't constitute a price increase, even if, to keep some of the channels customers had before, people have to pay more.


and they havent. By it being optional, your rate can stay exactly the same


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jjohns said:


> I, (foolishly I'll admit), actually expected 70 HD channels that were currently broadcasting high def content, not that some time in the future they may broadcast some. The ad should have said 70 "HD-capable" channels so idiots like me wouldn't be expecting unrealistic results.


HD is a format .. the channels you are receiving are in HD format when it arrives at your set .. no deception, period.

What you are seeing is content from a provider that has been up converted from standard definition format to high definition format. DIRECTV delivers the content, they do not create it. Your beef is with the content providers, and the fact that content simply cannot be produced overnight is what is causing so much "standard definition" content to show up on the HD channels.

The channels are High Definition because they are either 720p or 1080i on your television. Nothing else need to be qualified from DIRECTV's perspective.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

KurtV said:


> Which one? This one: "we've got a $10 price to the [HD] package and we don't have plans to change that"?
> 
> It's only misleading if they did indeed have plans to increase the price, which we have no way of knowing.
> 
> I hate these kinds of discussions because focusing on semantics tends to trivialize things, but words mean things and accusing people of lying and bad faith is a fairly serious accusation.


The documents in the HDNet lawsuit indicated that they had already planned the new tier in February of 07. The talks of it had to occur before then.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> HD is a format .. the channels you are receiving are in HD format when it arrives at your set .. no deception, period.
> 
> What you are seeing is content from a provider that has been up converted from standard definition format to high definition format. DIRECTV delivers the content, they do not create it. Your beef is with the content providers, and the fact that content simply cannot be produced overnight is what is causing so much "standard definition" content to show up on the HD channels.
> 
> The channels are High Definition because they are either 720p or 1080i on your television. Nothing else need to be qualified from DIRECTV's perspective.


Exactly, very good post


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> HD is a format .. the channels you are receiving are in HD format when it arrives at your set .. no deception, period.
> 
> What you are seeing is content from a provider that has been up converted from standard definition format to high definition format. DIRECTV delivers the content, they do not create it. Your beef is with the content providers, and the fact that content simply cannot be produced overnight is what is causing so much "standard definition" content to show up on the HD channels.
> 
> The channels are High Definition because they are either 720p or 1080i on your television. Nothing else need to be qualified from DIRECTV's perspective.


"No deception, period."

So you are saying that when DirecTV adverstised they would have 70 High Def channels in the fall, you think most of the public that they were advertising to would think that when they bought this from DirecTV they would not expect to see high def content from those 70 channels when they tuned to them?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jjohns said:


> "No deception, period."
> 
> So you are saying that when DirecTV adverstised they would have 70 High Def channels in the fall, you think most of the public that they were advertising to would think that when they bought this from DirecTV they would not expect to see high def content from those 70 channels when they tuned to them?


I think that most of the public believes 16:9 standard definition is high definition because it is wider than normal (even if it's stretched 4:3). To me, the up converted SD picture looks better than the normally delivered SD picture.

The fact is that HD is a format, DIRECTV is delivering that format .. no deception. The fact that there are black bars anywhere on the screen has nothing to do with DIRECTV .. In fact, those black bars are part of what is being transmitted by the content provider which is not the case when you see them on an SD channel.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I think that most of the public believes 16:9 standard definition is high definition because it is wider than normal (even if it's stretched 4:3). To me, the up converted SD picture looks better than the normally delivered SD picture.
> 
> The fact is that HD is a format, DIRECTV is delivering that format .. no deception. The fact that there are black bars anywhere on the screen has nothing to do with DIRECTV .. In fact, those black bars are part of what is being transmitted by the content provider which is not the case when you see them on an SD channel.


So I advertise and sell you a capped bottle of Coke for one dollar and the bottle is not transparent. I don't mention there might not actually be any Coke in the bottle. You get it home, open it and nothing is there. And I say, "Its not my fault the bottling plant didn't fill the bottle."


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jjohns said:


> "No deception, period."
> 
> So you are saying that when DirecTV adverstised they would have 70 High Def channels in the fall, you think most of the public that they were advertising to would think that when they bought this from DirecTV they would not expect to see high def content from those 70 channels when they tuned to them?


There IS HD content on the channels. Most all of them show what you are considering HD during prime time at the minimum. Others are 24/7. I just dont understand where you are coming from when you imply you wont see HD on ANY of them.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I think that most of the public believes 16:9 standard definition is high definition because it is wider than normal (even if it's stretched 4:3). To me, the up converted SD picture looks better than the normally delivered SD picture.
> 
> The fact is that HD is a format, DIRECTV is delivering that format .. no deception. The fact that there are black bars anywhere on the screen has nothing to do with DIRECTV .. In fact, those black bars are part of what is being transmitted by the content provider which is not the case when you see them on an SD channel.


It seems to me that you are saying that DirecTV is selling the "format" not the "content" and therefore it is not deceiving. And I'm saying the average person is going to expect to tune to those channels and see high definition content. And DirecTV certainly knows that. At no time in their ads is there a distinction between format and content. To me, if you know that most of the people you are advertising to are not tech-savvy and are going to interpret your ad differently than what it technically really does say - and you know they will - That is deception.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

Ken S said:


> The documents in the HDNet lawsuit indicated that they had already planned the new tier in February of 07. The talks of it had to occur before then.


Channging packages/tiers does not equal price increase which is what they were discussing on the conference call. I don't think they were playing semantics games either when you consider the answer in the full context of the question and the conference call.

I could be wrong, but when I read that transcript I get the impression of a general question about HD and pricing. This wasn't a detailed communication to subscribers about packages and pricing and shouldn't be used that way.


----------



## yensid (Aug 12, 2006)

I'm confused. In 2009 it is mandated that everything be broadcasted in HD. However, the satellite companies get away with still broadcasting in SD and can charge higher for HD?

I too don't like the deception and have seen my bill rise from $26.99 to near $80 with adding only one extra receiver. It is a strategic move for them to have the most HD channels. Why keep raising rates so much? Does it cost that much gas to ship the channels to my house?!?!?!?!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jjohns said:


> So I advertise and sell you a capped bottle of Coke for one dollar and the bottle is not transparent. I don't mention there might not actually be any Coke in the bottle. You get it home, open it and nothing is there. And I say, "Its not my fault the bottling plant didn't fill the bottle."


Yes, but you didn't deliver what was purchased .. DIRECTV did. The format is 720p or 1080i which is exactly what HD is. DIRECTV is delivering what was advertised. The content that you are referring to is standard definition that has been up converted to high definition format .. it is as simple as that.

I hear what you're saying .. you don't like the pillar box or the window box .. you're blaming DIRECTV for those boxes. Technically speaking the black portions you see on the screen are part of the signal that is being delivered by DIRECTV .. it is technically high definition, but it is understandable why you are disappointed. I see nothing either illegal or deceptive in DIRECTV stating that it is high definition because it is, in fact, high definition.

f we were to use your definition, then DIRECTV has virtually no HD channels .. most (if not all) have some form of up convert during the day .. That would be true of each and every provider regardless of whether it is DIRECTV, Echostar, Comcast, etc. There are a few exceptions (HDNet?, MGMHD?, etc.) but most of the channels would fall into this category. By this definition, High Definition is by nature deceptive. It seems to me that you just have a misunderstanding about what High Definition is.

Since High Definition merely describes a delivery format, as long as DIRECTV delivers that format it cannot be considered deceptive to advertise that they have as many HD channels that they do.


----------



## psweig (Feb 4, 2006)

jjohns said:


> So I advertise and sell you a capped bottle of Coke for one dollar and the bottle is not transparent. I don't mention there might not actually be any Coke in the bottle. You get it home, open it and nothing is there. And I say, "Its not my fault the bottling plant didn't fill the bottle."


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## psweig (Feb 4, 2006)

As far as I'm concerned there is no argument here. Yes, it's not D*s fault, but they need to get behind their subscribers. Of couse when HD is advertised people expect HD. End of story.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> DIRECTV delivers the content, they do not create it. Your beef is with the content providers....


This may be gospel in the TV world, but as a consumer in the marketplace, I like others have a basic problem with this assertion. It's like the Cadillac dealer saying, we didn't build your car, GM did. If you have a problem because our TV ad says the power train is covered for 5 Yrs./60 mos., your complaint that the transmission's leaking oil is with GM, contact them! Don't bug us.

I know, the delivery of TV signals isn't exactly the same as selling cars and I'm sure the manufacturer ultimately pays, but for me the analogy holds. D* must have some responsibility in their promotion & hyping of that TV signal.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

yensid said:


> I'm confused. In 2009 it is mandated that everything be broadcasted in HD. However, the satellite companies get away with still broadcasting in SD and can charge higher for HD?
> 
> I too don't like the deception and have seen my bill rise from $26.99 to near $80 with adding only one extra receiver. It is a strategic move for them to have the most HD channels. Why keep raising rates so much? Does it cost that much gas to ship the channels to my house?!?!?!?!


No, all OTA broadcasts are switching from analog to digital(which HD is a part of). In no way is it implied that everything has to be HD. It doesnt effect sat companies at all


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

yensid said:


> I'm confused. In 2009 it is mandated that everything be broadcasted in HD. However, the satellite companies get away with still broadcasting in SD and can charge higher for HD?


The government mandate is that all over the air analog signals be stopped in February 2009. Satellite companies are rebroadcasting (or distributing) the content that they receiver from the providers into your home via their licensed satellite service. Basically, the government owns the airwaves and the frequencies used for the analog transmissions have been sold/licensed to someone else for a different purpose.

If the signal is delivered via Cable, phone line, satellite or even over the air via a proprietary "wireless" cable system, then it is not affected by this legislation. The only thing that is affected are the broadcasts from your local affiliates TV station to an antenna that may be on top of your house. Nothing else is affected.

Where DIRECTV may need to be concerned is when they have an antenna on their roof and they need to receive the over the air signal from the station. DIRECTV will need to coordinate with those stations to make sure that they can receive the digital signal on the new frequency.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Bill Johnson said:


> This may be gospel in the TV world, but as a consumer in the marketplace, I like others have a basic problem with this assertion. It's like the Cadillac dealer saying, we didn't build your car, GM did. If you have a problem because our TV ad says the power train is covered for 5 Yrs./60 mos., your complaint that the transmission's leaking oil is with GM, contact them! Don't bug us.
> 
> I know, the delivery of TV signals isn't exactly the same as selling cars and I'm sure the manufacturer ultimately pays, but for me the analogy holds. D* must have some responsibility in their promotion & hyping of that TV signal.


What are they hyping that isnt being delivered? Sure not all of them show HD content 24/7 but there is a considerable amount of HD on most(not all) of them now. The ones that havent shown much or any(very few) are failry new.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> This may be gospel in the TV world, but as a consumer in the marketplace, I like others have a basic problem with this assertion. It's like the Cadillac dealer saying, we didn't build your car, GM did. If you have a problem because our TV ad says the power train is covered for 5 Yrs./60 mos., your complaint that the transmission's leaking oil is with GM, contact them! Don't bug us.
> 
> I know, the delivery of TV signals isn't exactly the same as selling cars and I'm sure the manufacturer ultimately pays, but for me the analogy holds. D* must have some responsibility in their promotion & hyping of that TV signal.


So it sounds like you would like DIRECTV to add a simple disclaimer that says:

"High Definition Channels sometimes show up converted standard definition programming"

Nothing wrong with wanting that ... But as I noted before each and every other delivery system has the same problem that DIRECTV has. I'm just not seeing the deception. I'm able to seem more HD programming today than ever .. virtually everything I watch is in HD.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

> What are they hyping that isnt being delivered?


I'm addressing the general thrust of the assertion that D* has no responsibility for content. I'm not necessarily saying what they are or are not doing!


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

jjohns said:


> So you are saying that when DirecTV adverstised they would have 70 High Def channels in the fall, you think most of the public that they were advertising to would think that when they bought this from DirecTV they would not expect to see high def content from those 70 channels when they tuned to them?


This is a completely different topic. DirecTV did what it said in providing the channels. They are HD in delivery. The quality of the content has nothing to do with DirecTV unless they are in someway degrading it. They are not, in this case. Therefore any issue with the content itself should be discussed with the content providers, not the distributor (in this case, DirecTV).

For the record, I have watched HDNet a good bit. I watch Smallville and do not have a local HD CW affiliate. The number of hours I have watched on HDNet far eclipse what I have watched on TBS HD, for example. I find it hard for people to argue about lack of HD on channels and, at the same time, marginalize one of the channels that fought the good fight.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Yes, but you didn't deliver what was purchased .. DIRECTV did. The format is 720p or 1080i which is exactly what HD is. DIRECTV is delivering what was advertised. The content that you are referring to is standard definition that has been up converted to high definition format .. it is as simple as that.
> 
> I hear what you're saying .. you don't like the pillar box or the window box .. you're blaming DIRECTV for those boxes. Technically speaking the black portions you see on the screen are part of the signal that is being delivered by DIRECTV .. it is technically high definition, but it is understandable why you are disappointed. I see nothing either illegal or deceptive in DIRECTV stating that it is high definition because it is, in fact, high definition.
> 
> ...


I don't misunderstand what high definition is but your technical explanation was very nice.

However, I am saying that DirecTV knows quite well that when they advertise 70 high def channels, the average person, after purchasing it, is going to expect to see high def content on those channels. Technically speaking, you are correct, and that is where the problem lies. The average person is not going to distinguish between format and content. And D* taking the stance that "if they don't understand it, its their fault" is just a sneaky way to con someone.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

> So it sounds like you would like DIRECTV to add a simple disclaimer that says:
> 
> "High Definition Channels sometimes show up converted standard definition programming"


That would be a start and, in my figuratively salivating over the idea of 100 bazillion HD channels, I wouldn't have spent considerable time on this board to learn that!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Bill Johnson said:


> That would be a start and, in my figuratively salivating over the idea of 100 bazillion HD channels, I wouldn't have spent considerable time on this board to learn that!


Then most would have to come here or some other board to learn what upconverted means. 
Maybe they should put the disclamer up, however the burden of research when it comes to understanding something like HD should really rest on the end consumer.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> Then most would have to come here or some other board to learn what upconverted means.
> Maybe they should put the disclamer up, however the burden of research when it comes to understanding something like HD should really rest on the end consumer.


That's kinda my thought as well.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

Hopefully a year from now we will see lots of true HD programming other than the old CSI reruns over and over again on basically every channel so far ....thus making the complaints go away...but for now we will have to settle for what few programs are available...just look forward to CSI being shown on the next set of channel rollouts.....One bright spot is BSG Razor will be shown in HD this Saturday on SciFiHD....


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Bill Johnson said:


> This may be gospel in the TV world, but as a consumer in the marketplace, I like others have a basic problem with this assertion. It's like the Cadillac dealer saying, we didn't build your car, GM did. If you have a problem because our TV ad says the power train is covered for 5 Yrs./60 mos., your complaint that the transmission's leaking oil is with GM, contact them! Don't bug us.
> 
> I know, the delivery of TV signals isn't exactly the same as selling cars and I'm sure the manufacturer ultimately pays, but for me the analogy holds. D* must have some responsibility in their promotion & hyping of that TV signal.


Your analogy doesn't really work here. D* is more like the trucking company that delivered the Cadillac made by GM. The trucking company didn't have a say in the design and build of the car. They could only be held responsible if a problem was created by their delivery, not with the product itself.


----------



## lman (Dec 21, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> and they havent. By it being optional, your rate can stay exactly the same


But I get less service for the same amount of money, since they are taking channels away from me. Thats not the way I do business.


----------



## lman (Dec 21, 2006)

jjohns said:


> "No deception, period."
> 
> So you are saying that when DirecTV adverstised they would have 70 High Def channels in the fall, you think most of the public that they were advertising to would think that when they bought this from DirecTV they would not expect to see high def content from those 70 channels when they tuned to them?


Do you really think they care what the customers think. If they did they wouldn't require a 2 year commitment. Once you sign the dotted line they are going to get your money whether you keep or cancel their service.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

lman said:


> But I get less service for the same amount of money, since they are taking channels away from me. Thats not the way I do business.


actually you get more. You just get some different channels. A jump from nine to somewhere in the 40-60 range is a huge increase for the same money


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

man_rob said:


> Your analogy doesn't really work here. D* is more like the trucking company that delivered the Cadillac made by GM. The trucking company didn't have a say in the design and build of the car. They could only be held responsible if a problem was created by their delivery, not with the product itself.


You've lost me on your analogy because it isn't the trucking company running the tv and newspaper ads saying:
"Come down to Smitty's auto row showroom and see 100 (sic) flashy Cadillac hybrids, everyone having a 5 yr./60 mos. power train warranty. "

When that Cadillac breaks down  it's the dealer and not GM or the trucking co. I'm going to (don't I wish I had that problem!)!


----------



## Bertrude (Nov 3, 2007)

Bill Johnson said:


> You've lost me on your analogy because it isn't the trucking company running the tv and newspaper ads saying:
> "Come down to Smitty's auto row showroom and see 100 (sic) flashy Cadillac hybrids, everyone having a 5 yr./60 mos. power train warranty. "


No, but I'm sure that when a potential client calls up the trucking company, they tell them they have trucks that are big enough and fast enough to deliver whatever the client needs.

Complaining to DirecTV about content on the channels they carry is like calling up your ISP and complaining that a particular website doesn't have enough meaningful content.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Bertrude said:


> No, but I'm sure that when a potential client calls up the trucking company, they tell them they have trucks that are big enough and fast enough to deliver whatever the client needs.
> 
> Complaining to DirecTV about content on the channels they carry is like calling up your ISP and complaining that a particular website doesn't have enough meaningful content.


+1. Very useful comparison


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

If anybody should be carrying a disclaimer about the amount of actual HD-produced content airing on their channels its the channels themselves - not DirecTV. DirecTV made an agreement with the powers that are SciFi to carry SciFi-HD. I doubt that SciFi-HD would appreciate (or sit still for) DirecTV running ads that say "We are now carrying SciFi-HD. However, the actual HD-produced content on SciFi-HD is only about 12.5% of their broadcast day."

DirecTv is carrying the SciFi-HD feed. If there is "deception" being perpetrated on the 'unknowing' public, let SciFi-HD take that up with the public. It is, after all, completely under THIER control, not DirecTv's.





wow-Post # 2000


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> There IS HD content on the channels. Most all of them show what you are considering HD during prime time at the minimum. Others are 24/7. I just dont understand where you are coming from when you imply you wont see HD on ANY of them.


Some have no HD. Some have only token HD programming. Most have at least a couple of hours per week. Relatively few are 24/7.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

well from what i have read here and feel i think D*s jd power rating on cust. 
satisfaction is going down the tubes Bad decision dtv


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

ok one last thing my GF was complaining bio wasent hd so when she went out for a sig. i stretched it out to fill the screen and when she came back in i told her they just 
put it on hd she could not tell the difference.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> Some have no HD. Some have only token HD programming. Most have at least a couple of hours per week. Relatively few are 24/7.


Yes, some dont have any, and of THOSE, most were added last week, give them time.
Of the rest, most have a few hours a day, and a good many are 24/7(premium channels, smithsonian, ect).


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

gfrang said:


> well from what i have read here and feel i think D*s jd power rating on cust.
> satisfaction is going down the tubes Bad decision dtv


why?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

You have a choice. You can complain that there isn't enough HD on a channel or you can complain that the channel was added after it had HD content that you missed. Would you rather see all the HD as soon as it appears (and probably be watching before it appears) or you can miss some of it. You can't have it both ways, people.

Scifi has a very small percentage of HD. Do you think that would have made the fans of Battlestar Galactica feel better when they missed Razor because the percentage wasn't high enough to meet some users' requirements? 

People have complained for years about the degradation of SD signals. At the very least on the last channel additions, you have a significant improvement over that.

Complain to the content providers. Since DirecTV has added the channels, you will see any improvements the providers choose to make first.


----------



## djzack67 (Sep 18, 2007)

warriorking said:


> Hopefully a year from now we will see lots of true HD programming other than the old CSI reruns over and over again on basically every channel so far ....thus making the complaints go away...but for now we will have to settle for what few programs are available...just look forward to CSI being shown on the next set of channel rollouts.....One bright spot is BSG Razor will be shown in HD this Saturday on SciFiHD....


BSG Razor will be shown in HD this Saturday on SciFiHD....

Where does it say that? In the guide and online it just lists as Letterbox.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

djzack67 said:


> BSG Razor will be shown in HD this Saturday on SciFiHD....
> 
> Where does it say that? In the guide and online it just lists as Letterbox.


Entertainment Weekly is reporting it will be HD.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Entertainment Weekly is reporting it will be HD.


It is also reporting it in my "To Do" list as HD(even though the guide and the info it gives out isnt always accurate)


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Bill Johnson said:


> You've lost me on your analogy because it isn't the trucking company running the tv and newspaper ads saying:
> "Come down to Smitty's auto row showroom and see 100 (sic) flashy Cadillac hybrids, everyone having a 5 yr./60 mos. power train warranty. "
> 
> When that Cadillac breaks down  it's the dealer and not GM or the trucking co. I'm going to (don't I wish I had that problem!)!


The whole auto analogy was a poor choice to begin with, but I was trying to work with what was given. Ultimately, with the warranty, it is GM who pays the price.

But again, D* is the just delivery system. They don't have the least bit say in what the channels broadcast. (Neither does Comcast, or Dish, etc,. So why attack just D*?) None of them can dictate the programming. They just pass along the signals, and shows that are given to them.

It isn't D* doing the upscaling. (if it was, they would have gone to 100 channels months ago) As new networks start their HD feeds, D has been been picking up those channels. The Biography Channel starts on the 28th, but in your mind, _somehow_ it will be D*'s fault if A&E Television Networks doesn't immediately provide D* with all HD programming, even if other providers also start broadcasting that channel as well?


----------



## Zellster (Aug 3, 2007)

Anyway, back to the original question of whether this extra fee is fair to long time subscribers... I would be more inclined to pay $12 a month for all HD combined then $10 + $5 with the $5 being for a handful of channels that I don't really watch that much. I would still feel cheated that they were removed to another tier.

I hope the HD NET complaint will delay this or at least change D*s mind on this tiering. I've always thought it was a senseless money grab. Sort of like the Maryland State Legislature sticking it to us residents with huge tax increases this past week.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

man_rob said:


> The whole auto analogy was a poor choice to begin with, but I was trying to work with what was given. Ultimately, with the warranty, it is GM who pays the price.
> 
> But again, D* is the just delivery system. They don't have the least bit say in what the channels broadcast. (Neither does Comcast, or Dish, etc,. So why attack just D*?) None of them can dictate the programming. They just pass along the signals, and shows that are given to them.
> 
> It isn't D* doing the upscaling. (if it was, they would have gone to 100 channels months ago) As new networks start their HD feeds, D has been been picking up those channels. The Biography Channel starts on the 28th, but in your mind, _somehow_ it will be D*'s fault if A&E Television Networks doesn't immediately provide D* with all HD programming, even if other providers also start broadcasting that channel as well?


If it were the content providers who were advertising to bring you 70 high def channels then yes, I agree - your beef would be with them. But the content providers are not the ones advertising. DirecTV is advertising to bring you 70 channels of high def. I guess it comes down to whether you think DirecTV's marketing folks were purposely deceiving, even though their ad was technically correct. Did they knew only the most high tech minded would distinguish between content and format? That would go to intent, which is difficult, if not impossible, to know.

Some always gives D* the benefit of the doubt and say they were not purposely deceiving. Some would jump at the chance and always claim they're certain D* knew what they were doing. I'm just saying that without knowing the real intent, one can only go by past practices or experience. And here is where I think, recently, that D* is developing a pattern of playing this sort of semantic game.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

jjohns said:


> If it were the content providers who were advertising to bring you 70 high def channels then yes, I agree - your beef would be with them. But the content providers are not the ones advertising. DirecTV is advertising to bring you 70 channels of high def. I guess it comes down to whether you think DirecTV's marketing folks were purposely deceiving, even though their ad was technically correct. Did they knew only the most high tech minded would distinguish between content and format? That would go to intent, which is difficult, if not impossible, to know.
> 
> Some always gives D* the benefit of the doubt and say they were not purposely deceiving. Some would jump at the chance and always claim they're certain D* knew what they were doing. I'm just saying that without knowing the real intent, one can only go by past practices or experience. And here is where I think, recently, that D* is developing a pattern of playing this sort of semantic game.


D* is delivering over 70 channels of HD. Turn to any of the channels and look at the resolution indicator. Now, what those networks pass over their own 720p and 1080i feeds is not D*'s decision, any more than it is Comcast's or or Dish's.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

man_rob said:


> D* is delivering over 70 channels of HD. Turn to any of the channels and look at the resolution indicator. Now, what those networks pass over their own 720p and 1080i feeds is not D*'s decision, any more than it is Comcast's or or Dish's.


correct, i dont see what the argument here is really


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> correct, i dont see what the argument here is really


me either .. It's not DIRECTV's fault that HD Programming and HD Format are both called HD and used interchangeably. The consumer has some culpability here.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> me either .. It's not DIRECTV's fault that HD Programming and HD Format are both called HD and used interchangeably. The consumer has some culpability here.


True, and its not like the channels are showing HD programming at all either.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

In the end for the family, the HD extra pack will probably be worth having. 

We have been a long time "premier customer" with HD ST EI and every subscribe-able channel available (including PBTV) 8 or 9 DVR's etc.

We have always been treated good by D*. So when the shoe drops I'll call and cry about HDNET and will probably be given some programming credits to cover it for a while and in the end add it to the 175/mo. they get now. 

I was told on many occasions over the last two years as we upgraded everything to HD that there would be NO NEW charges for HD when they added the new channels so I can understand people with the gripe (myself included) and it seems like it would be a lot easier for D* to just grandfather current subs until you change your package.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

wavemaster said:


> ... it seems like it would be a lot easier for D* to just grandfather current subs until you change your package.


I know this is going to sound like an oxymoron (the 'DirecTV definitively stating' part ), but has DirecTV definitively stated that they WON'T be grandfathering current subs?


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I know this is going to sound like an oxymoron (the 'DirecTV definitively stating' part ), but has DirecTV definitively stated that they WON'T be grandfathering current subs?


Not that I know of, but we did get a letter.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I know this is going to sound like an oxymoron (the 'DirecTV definitively stating' part ), but has DirecTV definitively stated that they WON'T be grandfathering current subs?


Yes, it has been confirmed.



> DIRECTV spokesman Robert Mercer confirmed this evening that both current and new customers will have to pay $4.99 a month to get the channels in the HD Extra Pack. But Mercer said it's not a price increase.
> 
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/dprices101807.htm


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

What do you suppose the logic was behind picking the channels that D* picked for this new package, tier or whatever you want to call it? Did D* just arbitrarily pull HDNet out of a hat? Why do you suppose HDNet was chosen as one of the channels?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

jjohns said:


> What do you suppose the logic was behind picking the channels that D* picked for this new package, tier or whatever you want to call it? Did D* just arbitrarily pull HDNet out of a hat? Why do you suppose HDNet was chosen as one of the channels?


It doesn't have an SD version.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

jjohns said:


> What do you suppose the logic was behind picking the channels that D* picked for this new package, tier or whatever you want to call it? Did D* just arbitrarily pull HDNet out of a hat? Why do you suppose HDNet was chosen as one of the channels?


Channels without an SD version were moved to the extra pack.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

And no, I don't know how HD Theater got an exemption.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

gregjones said:


> And no, I don't know how HD Theater got an exemption.


My guess would be that, seeing how virtually all of it's programming is available on other channels, Directv has plans to replace it for another channel at some point in the not too distant future.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

So here's a question... What does DirecTV do when channels start turning off their SD feeds? Not likely in the short term, but eventually it will happen. By then the logic of an HD tier without SD counterpart will have evaporated and we'll be left with another tier to pay extra for a "random" sampling of channels. I personally was quite happy when DirecTV pushed the vast majority of "standard cable" channels into a common tier. Sports and premiums in their own tiers makes sense. 

What's to prevent any of the "HD only" channels from making available an SD equivalent. Extremely counterintuitive for HDNet's situation and channel premise, but would that allow them to slip back out of the extra pack?

Or those ideas may be barely-coherent ramblings in the afternoon prior to a long holiday weekend...


----------



## jwebb1970 (Oct 3, 2007)

gregjones said:


> And no, I don't know how HD Theater got an exemption.


HD Theater, part of the Discovery Networks.....

Discovery Networks....controlled by Liberty Media......

Liberty Media.......a DirecTv shareholder...

I'm guessing that is how HD Theater got a pass on the Extra Pack.

Am I wrong?


----------



## protege2k (Sep 22, 2006)

The following is an interesting article on the dispute, mainly because it offers a little of both parties views (HDNET and DirecTV). In the article it is stated that the move was prompted by economics, but please interpret for yourself.

*avid.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=238975*

I rarely jump into passionate arguments, but my two cents deals with the following - rationalization.

I was born to very good parents who taught me right and wrong, and as we have all noticed, the more money you have, the less this seems to apply. Misappropriation of funds by C level executives translates into stealing where I come from - period. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .

Along this line, as a person with average intelligence I find it insulting that the term HD Access use to mean access to all of DirecTV's HD programming - this just a few months ago. Now it means access to the HD equivalent of SD channels, if and only if you currently pay for the tier in which the channels appear. ??? I missed that in the original explanation when I first signed up. Oh and in addition, you can pay $4.99 to get the HD only, no SD equivalent, channels that actually carry the HD signal and HD content.

In defense of DirecTV, they have the right to change all language at anytime for any reason (or at least it seems so), and I as the consumer can elect to leave at anytime (pending surrender of equipment and remaining fees owed). The sad part is DirecTV is probably the best of the worst, hey they never really lied. Oh, there I go rationalizing - quack . . .


----------



## steinmeg (Nov 23, 2006)

paulsown said:


> I think it would be better if they just called it what it was....a price increase. In a way, I feel like I am dealing with a used car company. It's all about honesty. If they want to raise the price, tell me about it. Don't take away channels and then try to charge me to get them back. Thats a little sleazy.


There was a link which went to has a complete suit brought by Mark Cuban against DirecTV on the new price increase. An injunction was handed out by the courts...I do not think D* can increase prices if their is an injunction against them........


----------



## jdeitchler (Oct 10, 2005)

HDNet Settles DIRECTV Lawsuit
The satcaster will keep one HDNet channel in its regular HD tier. 
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (December 7, 2007) -- HDNet has settled a lawsuit against DIRECTV that will keep one of its channels in the satcaster's basic HD programming package.

That's according to an article by Multichannel News.

HDNet sued DIRECTV last month to stop the satcaster from moving both HDNet and HDNet Movies to a new "HD Extra Pack" package that would cost subscribers $4.99 a month in addition to their regular $9.99 monthly "HD access fee."

The high-def network, co-founded by Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, charged that fewer people would pay the additional $4.99. Consequently, the viewership for both HDNet and HDNet Movies would shrink considerably.

However, Cuban tells Multichannel News that the settlement will require DIRECTV to keep HDNet in the $9.99 basic HD package. HDNet Movies, however, will be moved to the $4.99 HD Extra Pack.

“HDNet will be fully distributed and HDNet Movies will be available on the Extra Pack Tier. It's a win-win for all involved," Cuban told Multichannel News.

Before the settlement, the two sides were scheduled to appear today for a hearing in a District Court in Dallas on HDNet's request for a permanent injunction to stop DIRECTV from moving the channels. The hearing was cancelled after the settlement.


----------



## cruxer (Nov 11, 2006)

jdeitchler said:


> HDNet Settles DIRECTV Lawsuit
> The satcaster will keep one HDNet channel in its regular HD tier.
> By Swanni
> 
> Washington, D.C. (December 7, 2007) -- HDNet has settled a lawsuit against DIRECTV that will keep one of its channels in the satcaster's basic HD programming package....


GREAT news. I'm still not crazy about the extra fee, but I really like HDNet movies and the MGM channel, so I'll pay.

-c


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

directv 12 yrs: the way I see it when D* took in all these channels they knew they were not equiped for hd even though D* is I think D* is after numbers, and thats the bottom line, just like E* and cable, they are all after numbers, period!


----------



## Janice805 (Nov 27, 2005)

I'm still confused. I called Direct TV yesterday to find out what happens to those channels on my account come 12/15. The CSR said since I have PREMIER and HD ACCESS (and other stuff), come 12/15 I'll still have HDN, HDMN, MGM, etc. and will NOT pay an extra $4.99 x month. Everything will continue on as is.

Right? Wrong? Do I need to call again?
Thanks


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

So it is settled.

HDNet stays in the base packages...
HDMovies goes to the $4.99.

And again.... on 12/15 you will need to signup for the $4.99 package if you want to continue with those channels


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So it is settled.
> 
> HDNet stays in the base packages...
> HDMovies goes to the $4.99.
> ...


Obviously I know already from here - but has DirecTv notified all HD subs ? I can't say I have received anything from them in writing.


----------



## Proc (Jan 19, 2006)

Honestly, they aren't going to get enough people to subscribe to this to make it worthwhile. I like Smithsonian HD and MHD, but not enough to spend $5 for them. No big deal to me. I'll spend the money on NFL ST and MLB EI.


----------



## EMoMoney (Dec 19, 2005)

paulsown said:


> I don't know anything about how this all works, how satellites work, or how the channels are placed into packages. All I know is that they are removing channels and then charging me more to get them.


Amen. I'm in a similar boat as I had the family package with the HD package and if I want to keep ESPN I had to increase my base package by 60%.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

we will be able to count the subs for the extra pack on one hand.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

dhines said:


> we will be able to count the subs for the extra pack on one hand.


I'll go out on a limb and say that around half of the HD Access subscribers will pick up the HD Extra pack.


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

I just added the Extra Pack, hoping against hope that since it still says 3 months free on the website when you add it, that i'll actually get 3 more months without being charged.


----------



## techrep (Sep 15, 2007)

Canis Lupus said:


> I just added the Extra Pack, hoping against hope that since it still says 3 months free on the website when you add it, that i'll actually get 3 more months without being charged.


Does that make you a wolf or a sheep dog? 

HDNET is the only one I cared about.


----------



## psweig (Feb 4, 2006)

techrep said:


> Does that make you a wolf or a sheep dog?
> 
> HDNET is the only one I cared about.


All I cared about was HDNET Movies


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

I'll find out soon enough !! :lol:



techrep said:


> Does that make you a wolf or a sheep dog?


----------



## cantfish2much (Feb 5, 2007)

I'm not payin' extra. Not worth it!


----------



## Dazed & Confused (Jun 13, 2007)

durl said:


> I'll go out on a limb and say that around half of the HD Access subscribers will pick up the HD Extra pack.


50% seems pretty optimistic to me. The polls on this site come out with 50% saying they will sign up, and these are the hard core DirecTV subs. Even then it is less than 400 people.

I think it is pretty safe to say that 6 months from now most of the general population of HD subscribers will still be wondering what happened to those movies that used to be on channel 78.


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

I agree


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

dhines said:


> we will be able to count the subs for the extra pack on one hand.


That better be one big A$$ hand with a lot of fingers to do the counting.


----------



## somguy (Oct 2, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So it is settled.
> 
> HDNet stays in the base packages...
> HDMovies goes to the $4.99.
> ...


When you say settled, is this after the hearing that " Mark Cuban " had with Directv yesterday in regards to the lawsuit?
I am sure that you remember that I mentioned to you that I was told this week by Directv that long standing customers as I will be Grandfathered in and not have to pay an extra fee for HDN, HDNM, UHD, & HDTH?! Only new customers since D* starting adding the new hd channels will have to pay for those particular channels. Now 2 different reps told me that so again they better hope and pray that this is true for me next week, otherwise action may have to be taken against them.....I kid you not.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

There's no way I am spending $5 a month to get 4 channels (and only 2 that I watch).. Smithsonian [most of their programming are 20 shows that just repeat] and Nat GEO.

D* should have just left these channels as part of the HD Access fee and increased their HD Access fee a dollar. Can't imagine that many people will subscribe to this HD tier.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

somguy said:


> When you say settled, is this after the hearing that " Mark Cuban " had with Directv yesterday in regards to the lawsuit?
> I am sure that you remember that I mentioned to you that I was told this week by Directv that long standing customers as I will be Grandfathered in and not have to pay an extra fee for HDN, HDNM, UHD, & HDTH?! Only new customers since D* starting adding the new hd channels will have to pay for those particular channels. Now 2 different reps told me that so again they better hope and pray that this is true for me next week, otherwise action may have to be taken against them.....I kid you not.


I would lawyer up then. I dont see it happening.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

somguy said:


> When you say settled, is this after the hearing that " Mark Cuban " had with Directv yesterday in regards to the lawsuit?
> I am sure that you remember that I mentioned to you that I was told this week by Directv that long standing customers as I will be Grandfathered in and not have to pay an extra fee for HDN, HDNM, UHD, & HDTH?! Only new customers since D* starting adding the new hd channels will have to pay for those particular channels. Now 2 different reps told me that so again they better hope and pray that this is true for me next week, otherwise action may have to be taken against them.....I kid you not.


Well... then you will need to check with DirecTV again.
Because every piece of information I have, says there will be no grandfathering of the HD-Extra Pack.

I believe I told you that as well in the thread that you started.

Be prepared with your action..


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

So HDNet stays in the HD Access group.

What exactly is going to be in the HD Extras Pack?


----------



## Janice805 (Nov 27, 2005)

I'm with you SOMGUY. I was also told come 12/15 I will not lose those channels, and, I will NOT be paying an extra $4.99. CSR told me since I've been with DTV for 10 years, and, have the Premier Pkg, and, pay for their HD Service, etc, etc ....

If they're wrong, I will let the channels go and "not" pay the extra price. But, she'd better be right because I "moved" some of my recordings on HDMN until "after" 12/15.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

sNEIRBO said:


> What exactly is going to be in the HD Extras Pack?


You'll know in a week.

Wouldn't it be funny if they moved DHDT to the Extras pack?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Janice805 said:


> But, she'd better be right because I "moved" some of my recordings on HDMN until "after" 12/15.


You're taking a big chance on something that has been given a relatively low probability here. Everything may go the way you've been told and you'll be fine. If it doesn't, you have been duped by a CSR and it will be shame on you.

This addition of HD channels represents the first very large move at DIRECTV in quite some time. It isn't reasonable to expect that they will simply absorb all of these additions as they have others.


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

harsh said:


> You'll know in a week.
> 
> Wouldn't it be funny if they moved DHDT to the Extras pack?


It's kind of a shame - Discovery HD Theatre holds a sentimental spot in my heart. It was one of the first HD Channels I watched on a regular basis. But it really has just become the "HD Repeat Channel" now that TLC, Discovery, Science, etc. all have their own HD Channels. I could see D* adding DHDT to the Extras Pack.

So I've heard mentioned -

MGM HD
Universal HD
M-HD
Biography HD
HDNet Movies HD

I used to watch Universal HD for BSG in HD, but now that SciFi is in HD - and I'm hoping they'll be broadcasting the final season of BSG in HD - I don't watch that much anymore either. Even if DHDT was the sixth channel in the HD Extras lineup, I still don't know if I'd be willing to pay $5/month more for those.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

sNEIRBO said:


> Biography HD


Why would this be in the HD Extra pack - there is a corresponding SD channel. Based on DirecTv's own statements on wht will be in the pack DHDTH should be in it but so far doesn't look like it will be. It would not surprise me if it moved oer though.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

The settlement is great news.Iam going to wait an see what happins if there is not to much takers on hdextra DirecTV may put the rest of the channels in the base package.


----------



## IcEWoLF (Jan 14, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


> Why would this be in the HD Extra pack - there is a corresponding SD channel. Based on DirecTv's own statements on wht will be in the pack DHDTH should be in it but so far doesn't look like it will be. It would not surprise me if it moved oer though.


QFT, What the heck is going on with DTV?


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Biography (including HD) is in the  Choice Extra, Plus DVR and Plus HD DVR packages.


----------



## Incog-Neato (Apr 21, 2006)

They told you wrong. Can't say they won't do it for YOU or anyone who may put up a stink but the "official" policy is you gotta pay to play.


somguy said:


> I am sure that you remember that I mentioned to you that I was told this week by Directv that long standing customers as I will be Grandfathered in and not have to pay an extra fee for HDN, HDNM, UHD, & HDTH?! Only new customers since D* starting adding the new hd channels will have to pay for those particular channels. Now 2 different reps told me that so again they better hope and pray that this is true for me next week, otherwise action may have to be taken against them.....I kid you not.


----------



## TomMac (Dec 23, 2006)

I just received my much dreaded email from DirecTV that I have until Saturday to watch the HD Net free preview. After that I will have to pay $4.99 a month. If I subscribe now they will give three months free. 

There is only one channel in that package that is of interest to me and that is Smithsonian HD. I do not feel like paying another 5 bucks for one channel.

They can stick it in their ear!

I have been a customer since 2002 and have had HD programing since September of 2006. Like everyone else I feel the new pricing tier is a rip off and will not subscribe to that package. It will be interesting to see if they deactivate the channels for customers like me. If they do so be it.


----------



## TomMac (Dec 23, 2006)

A quote below from this afternoon's email from D*.

Hurry, you only have until Saturday to preview this package of stunning HD-only channels, including MHD, HDNet Movies, MGM HD, Smithsonian Channel HD, and Universal HD. After the preview, you can continue to see these channels by adding DIRECTV HD Extra Pack to your programming.

Get three free months when you add the all-new DIRECTV HD Extra Pack by February 27. The regular price is just $4.99/mo.


----------



## TomMac (Dec 23, 2006)

bhelton71 said:


> Obviously I know already from here - but has DirecTv notified all HD subs ? I can't say I have received anything from them in writing.


Today's email was my first notification from D* concerning the new HD Extra package. If I were not a member of this board I would not have know about the new subscription tier.

A very poor way to do business.

 :nono: :nono2:


----------



## canekid (Mar 30, 2004)

Heck, I added the package, to keep HDNet Movies.

The others are a only valuable if they come commercial free, at least during feature presentations.

BTW What happened to Hogan's Heros On HDNet?


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Bring it back. Without hogan's heroes, HdNet isnt worth as much


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I removed the channels from my fav list last night!!!! Dont think I will miss them.
At a buck each I know I wont.


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

When is the cutoff date if you don't subscribe to the higher priced package?


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

TomMac said:


> Hurry, you only have until Saturday to preview this package of stunning HD-only channels, including MHD, HDNet Movies, MGM HD, Smithsonian Channel HD, and Universal HD. After the preview, you can continue to see these channels by adding DIRECTV HD Extra Pack to your programming.


In the case of the MPEG2's, "stunning" has a different meaning. Even if I were 100% willing to pay extra for these, I *WILL NOT* pay extra for downrezzed channels!


----------



## dogger01 (May 24, 2004)

So what happens when HD becomes the norm and all channels boadcast is HD? Are they still going to charge $10 for the HD package? I think this is a joke to charge an additional $5 for 5 channels. I bet you pretty soon that they will also raise the HD package price. Fisrt the upfront cost ($300) for a reciever that I don't own and additional $5. I Have been a loayal customer for 10 years but this might be the last staw. I love DTV but I am really considering going to FIOs TV since it is now offered in my town. Sorry just venting my frustration.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

I wonder how many people out there still only use MPEG-2 equipment, H-10 and 3 LNB. They get none of the new MPEG-4 channels and they now get a $5 increase on their current MPEG-2 channels. Sometimes life just isn't fair......


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Janice805 said:


> I'm with you SOMGUY. I was also told come 12/15 I will not lose those channels, and, I will NOT be paying an extra $4.99. CSR told me since I've been with DTV for 10 years, and, have the Premier Pkg, and, pay for their HD Service, etc, etc ....
> 
> If they're wrong, I will let the channels go and "not" pay the extra price. But, she'd better be right because I "moved" some of my recordings on HDMN until "after" 12/15.


If you have read even a small smattering of posts in these forums, you should know by now that you cannot trust ANYTHING that your are told by a CSR. It's not that they lie. They are misinformed and say what they believe to be true. All too often, their information is flat out wrong.

So, make your decisions based on what Earl says or thinks....he is FAR more likely to be correct, and even he gets some things wrong because his sources sometimes don't have it right either.

I'm not defending D*, far from it. I'm simply trying to save you some unwarranted misery. Your best chance of getting good info is on these forums, if you select those from whom you take your information carefully.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

csgo said:


> When is the cutoff date if you don't subscribe to the higher priced package?


December 15th or thereabouts.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Not payin' it.
As a matter of fact, I'm cancelling a few others.


----------



## kaminsco (Nov 27, 2006)

DIRECTV HD EXTRA PACK - HD-only channels


Wow, I just saw and figured this out. This is very disgusting, another $4.99 on top of the $9.99 for HD access (HD Extra Pack: MHD, HDNet Movies, MGM HD, Smithsonian Channel HD, and Universal HD). I had a hard problem with the initial $9.99 for the eight I only receive now. I have been a big fan of D* for the last twelve years but, this one is really pushing it. Not that big of fan for the HD to pay 20% more for and now is becoming very unattractive.

No way we are pay the $5 for this rip off.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

TomMac said:


> Today's email was my first notification from D* concerning the new HD Extra package. If I were not a member of this board I would not have know about the new subscription tier.
> 
> A very poor way to do business.
> 
> :nono: :nono2:


probably because the lawsuit was just settled a few days back .. Officially, DIRECTV had a Temporary Restraining Order for making changes and really didn't know WHAT to announce yet.

If you call in, there is probably a liberal "one to 3 months free" policy because of the timing, but I have not heard of anything specific.


----------



## Mike728 (Oct 29, 2007)

I ordered my "Extra" package on their website today without problem. The 3 months free showed up, too. Just have to sign up before Feb.


----------



## superfan1 (Sep 12, 2007)

So anyone know for sure if you sign up now for the 3 free months and then cancel in Mid March will you be billed any cancellation charges or other fees?

If not there really isnt many reasons not to sign up unless you are one who will forget to go back in and cancel in 3 months...


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Got this in my e-mail today...

OFFER INFORMATION
DIRECTV HD Extra Pack offer ends 2/27/08. If, after three consecutive months, customer does not contact DIRECTV to change service, then DIRECTV HD Extra Pack will automatically continue on the fourth month at the then-prevailing rates ($4.99/mo.). Package pricing at directv.com/packages.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

MikeW said:


> Got this in my e-mail today...
> 
> OFFER INFORMATION
> DIRECTV HD Extra Pack offer ends 2/27/08. If, after three consecutive months, customer does not contact DIRECTV to change service, then DIRECTV HD Extra Pack will automatically continue on the fourth month at the then-prevailing rates ($4.99/mo.). Package pricing at directv.com/packages.


Amazing! After all the speculation about opt-in/opt-out, it turns out (if I read your quote correctly), that it is an OPT-OUT setup. I stand in awe...the CSR whom I talked with about 4 weeks ago actually had the right information. I'm astonished!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hasan said:


> Amazing! After all the speculation about opt-in/opt-out, it turns out (if I read your quote correctly), that it is an OPT-OUT setup. I stand in awe...the CSR whom I talked with about 4 weeks ago actually had the right information. I'm astonished!


But isn't this after you sign up? If you truly do nothing, then will it get added?


----------



## DCFSCAZARES (Dec 4, 2006)

Just like the Mervin's commercial..Instead of saying "Open, Open, Open," I am now saying "Please, Please, Please -"Give me a break! Directv is becoming a little greedy with their HD agenda. When other satellite/cable companies catch up with them with their HD fiasco, Directv will chill out an give those channels back to us for free. 

P.S. Directv will continue to stretch their profits until we as a group say "Enough is Enough." Let us all boycott this new Extra Package...I bet Directv will have second thoughts on this issue! We ourselves are guilty, because we easily give in to their demands. There are enough channels to browse rather than paying $5 for an additional 5 channels....It does not make any sense you guys!


----------



## coota (Apr 10, 2007)

I would love to boycott Directv and not purchase the HD extra package but I love the Smithsonian channel as well as MGM and HDNEt Movies. three of my favorite channels so I will buy the add on.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

What is the latest on the HD Extra Package? Does anyont know if they dropped HDNet from the Extra Tier?


----------



## Mike728 (Oct 29, 2007)

smiddy said:


> What is the latest on the HD Extra Package? Does anyont know if they dropped HDNet from the Extra Tier?


It was replaced with HD music channels.


----------



## Janice805 (Nov 27, 2005)

I was told last week I would not lose (nor have to pay extra) for those channels come 12/15. Today, just the opposite. As a matter of fact, I called because I was confused as ot how it exactly WOULD affect me. All she did was "read" exactly what I already read (which didn't answer anything). I told her I wanted a DEFINITIVE answer to my question. As best she could tell, if I don't want to pay extra $$$, I'm to CALL DIRECT TV SATURDAY to cancel that package. I asked her if they were going to have "enough" staff to handle all the calls. She wasn't sure (of anything actually), so, ????

P.S. This was actually the laziest, most unintelligent and uninformed CSR in my 10 years with DTV. Bad experience. Guess I'm calling Saturday to have them DROP those channels from my package.


----------



## kaminsco (Nov 27, 2006)

DCFSCAZARES said:


> Just like the Mervin's commercial..Instead of saying "Open, Open, Open," I am now saying "Please, Please, Please -"Give me a break! Directv is becoming a little greedy with their HD agenda. When other satellite/cable companies catch up with them with their HD fiasco, Directv will chill out an give those channels back to us for free.
> 
> P.S. Directv will continue to stretch their profits until we as a group say "Enough is Enough." Let us all boycott this new Extra Package...I bet Directv will have second thoughts on this issue! We ourselves are guilty, because we easily give in to their demands. There are enough channels to browse rather than paying $5 for an additional 5 channels....It does not make any sense you guys!


amen! This is total greedy BS. As stated earlier, after twelve years, this is probably the first time I really beginning to question D*. They are pushing the limits with my current package and to put this $5 additional on for five channels breaks it. Time to give them up.


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

This action by DirecTV sure sounds like a bait and switch scam to me. They baited customers with advertisements of the various HD channels and as a result customers invested in HD equipment and programming charges... then once they got the customer hooked they switch some of those channels to a higher tier package.

Just another version of a very old scam.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

csgo said:


> This action by DirecTV sure sounds like a bait and switch scam to me. They baited customers with advertisements of the various HD channels and as a result customers invested in HD equipment and programming charges... then once they got the customer hooked they switch some of those channels to a higher tier package.
> 
> Just another version of a very old scam.


uh .. Hello .. we're not talking about the farm here, just a few channels. If you were baited into signing up for DIRECTV because of those few channels .. maybe .. but what about the other 50+ HD channels that were added? They should count for something. Besides it's only $5/month .. it's fair to complain, but bait and switch? Come on.


----------



## shendley (Nov 28, 2005)

So what's the deal now? Is it either 1) you subscribe now and get Hdextra for three months free or 2) you don't explicitly call them up and say no and you start getting charged right off the bat?


----------



## kaminsco (Nov 27, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> uh .. Hello .. we're not talking about the farm here, just a few channels. If you were baited into signing up for DIRECTV because of those few channels .. maybe .. but what about the other 50+ HD channels that were added? They should count for something. Besides it's only $5/month .. it's fair to complain, but bait and switch? Come on.


I have to agree with with csgo statement fully "baited customers with advertisements of the various HD channels and as a result customers invested in HD equipment and programming charges"

your point about the other 50+ does not make senese, they have nothing to do with the extra package and as far as HD quality they are virtually worthless. They are not in the 16:9 format and old shows that were not recorded in HD. At times, it is difficult to tell if they are HD.

Overall, it is offensive what D* is doing. The $9.99 access was too much already.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

kaminsco said:


> I have to agree with with csgo statement fully "baited customers with advertisements of the various HD channels and as a result customers invested in HD equipment and programming charges"
> 
> your point about the other 50+ does not make senese, they have nothing to do with the extra package and as far as HD quality they are virtually worthless. They are not in the 16:9 format and old shows that were not recorded in HD. At times, it is difficult to tell if they are HD.
> 
> Overall, it is offensive what D* is doing. The $9.99 access was too much already.


Do the "loss" of 5/6 channels (really, isn't it only 2 .. the other were "free" trial) is a bait and switch .. nah.


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> uh .. Hello .. we're not talking about the farm here, just a few channels. If you were baited into signing up for DIRECTV because of those few channels .. maybe .. but what about the other 50+ HD channels that were added? They should count for something. Besides it's only $5/month .. it's fair to complain, but bait and switch? Come on.


I think all of us saw the ads for 100+ HD Channels This Year or the variants of those ads. Included the logos of many, if not all of the HD channels... including many that are yet to come. They disclosed that HD Access was required.

None of them that I saw said anything about an Extra Package also being required.

Did DirecTV not know they were going to create a higher tier? Is their planning that short sighted? I doubt it... they knew all along that they would kick in the new package.

Only $5 / month makes it OK? Would the facts change if it were $10 or $20 / month instead?

What makes you think they won't move more channels to different packages like Discovery HD and want another $5 / month, or News HD, or Financial HD, or whatever you can imagine?

I really wouldn't have a problem with it if DirecTV would have said that they need to up the price of the HD Access package to $12 (for example). Most people would understand and accept that better than creating a new tier for channels and slapping on additional fees.

I think this is a poor decision by DirecTV and may end up costing them in the long run... but that's their choice. We have our choices.


----------



## kaminsco (Nov 27, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Do the "loss" of 5/6 channels (really, isn't it only 2 .. the other were "free" trial) is a bait and switch .. nah.


So what is with the $9.99 for HD Access? Don't defend it, it is total BS. There is no reason to put $4.99 on top of the overpriced $9.99. It is total greed.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

kaminsco said:


> So what is with the $9.99 for HD Access? Don't defend it, it is total BS. There is no reason to put $4.99 on top of the overpriced $9.99. It is total greed.


The $9.99 is basically for every HD channel except the ones that are in HD Extra .. which no longer includes HDNet, but someone noted that a different channel may be added instead .. I'm not sure about that one. The $4.99 is for those 5 or 6 channels. The $9.99 is for the other ones.


----------



## kaminsco (Nov 27, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The $9.99 is basically for every HD channel except the ones that are in HD Extra .. which no longer includes HDNet, but someone noted that a different channel may be added instead .. I'm not sure about that one. The $4.99 is for those 5 or 6 channels. The $9.99 is for the other ones.


In November 2006, when I got the HR20, the only HD was the eight channels in the 70's to the 90's. This was the HD access. Sorry, still does not add up.


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The $9.99 is basically for every HD channel except the ones that are in HD Extra .. which no longer includes HDNet, but someone noted that a different channel may be added instead .. I'm not sure about that one. The $4.99 is for those 5 or 6 channels. The $9.99 is for the other ones.


I THINK it would be more accurate to say that the $9.99 HD Access fee allows you to receive the HD channels associated with your base package (plus HDNet).

So if you have the Family or Choice packages with HD Access you would not receive all the HD channels that an account with Premier with HD would receive (thus the cost per HD channel is higher on the lower base packages).

All of these are soon to be minus the six channels moving to the HD Extra package which are not included in any base package except Titanium.

Those with the Titanium package do not pay extra for HD Access or HD Extra, but the Titanium package is not open to new subscribers.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

I don't understand why such deep grief over this issue. Either it's worth the five bucks or it's not. Get it or don't. The only guarantee about pricing in the contract I signed says that it is subject to change. Personally, I'm going to skip it for a month and see how often something appears that I really want to watch. If, after that month, I feel it is something I need to add, I'll do so.

When I compare my HD options to those of Cox and Dish, I feel I am getting a tremendous value for my dollar.


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

MikeW said:


> I don't understand why such deep grief over this issue. Either it's worth the five bucks or it's not. Get it or don't. The only guarantee about pricing in the contract I signed says that it is subject to change. Personally, I'm going to skip it for a month and see how often something appears that I really want to watch. If, after that month, I feel it is something I need to add, I'll do so.
> 
> When I compare my HD options to those of Cox and Dish, I feel I am getting a tremendous value for my dollar.


I gotta +1 to this, I mean really if you want to make a statement, do it with your wallet, don't buy HD Extra, even better drop your HD STB's and stop paying the $9.99 for it. If this is really as big a deal as some make it out to be DirecTV would lose money and offer you anything to get it back. Personally I am happy they did this instead of raising the HD Access fee because quite frankly I could care less about these channels and I like the option to opt out, and if the wife decides we must have them then I guess we would have decided they are worth the extra $60 bucks a year.

I understand some people don't like this but how long have we known about this now? Stop :beatdeadhorse: and find something else to spend your time on


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

hasan said:


> Amazing! After all the speculation about opt-in/opt-out, it turns out (if I read your quote correctly), that it is an OPT-OUT setup. I stand in awe...the CSR whom I talked with about 4 weeks ago actually had the right information. I'm astonished!


I pasted the part of getting an additional 3 free months out of context.

On 12/15, the channels will go dark unless you "opt-in" by ordering the HD Extra pack. If you don't order, the channels will go away. If you do order, you get an additional 3 months of free HD Pack. At the end of the 3 months (2/28), you either cancel or start paying $4.99.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I too can't get a straight answer from even a supervisor at DirecTV.
She knew "nothing" about channels being dropped or costing more, other than my Total Choice plus programing package is now "obsolete"? Say What?
I haven't changed my programing package in four years. The last time I did was when HDNet changed from free to having to pay for the "HD package" [yeah, all six of them at the time :lol: ].
I'm still paying for the HD package, if they want to drop the MGM, Smithsonian, etc. from my "free preview", fine, but charging me $5 for part of a package I already have? I don't think so. Somewhere I think "grandfathered" comes in to play.
Saturday will be when the "fun" really starts.
They'll be prying my total choice plus programing package out of "my cold, dead hands".


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

This is about the most goofy marketing-advertising plan-scheme I've ever seen. You've been getting these channels free all along. Then comes this email that it was really a free preview for all this time. Then you have until Saturday to "sign up" and continue your free preview you've had all along. Then if you sign up you can "continue to see these channels you've been seeing all along by adding DIRECTV HD Extra Pack to your programming." So then, if you sign up, you get 3 more months "free preview" of the channels you have already been free previewing all along. I suppose after those 3 months you have to start paying $4.99 a month. 


Couldn't you just say that starting February 27th it's gonna cost you $4.99 a month to see these channels?


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Yes, they could say it'll be $4.99 starting 2/27, but how do they communicate this? Also, how do they ensure the customer can give an affirmative yes or no to the package with as little confrontation as possible?

I see it as forward thinking. People would be angered if DirecTV had opted everybody in and started charging $4.99 for the package. This way, they turn the channels off, you call in to complain about the lost channels and they can offer you 3 more months free and, as a customer, you have agreed to opt in, you get another discount and you can shut it off if you decide that it is too much money.

There certainly is no simple solution to making a major change, and this seems like a win/win to get this package launched. Certainly, if you're going to want more, you'll have to pay a little more....right?


----------



## Randino (Oct 12, 2007)

Just a thought here, if the big problem with mpeg2 was compression, but now everything is moving to mpeg4, then shouldn't that open up more room on the mpeg2 stream thus reducing the need for compression. Also, on the $5 fee, if you don't want to pay it, then don't. But to boycott that package would be silly. Even if everyone on this board boycotted the package Directv wouldn't notice because there are millions of people who will pay the price because they don't know or don't care.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jjohns said:


> This is about the most goofy marketing-advertising plan-scheme I've ever seen. You've been getting these channels free all along. Then comes this email that it was really a free preview for all this time. Then you have until Saturday to "sign up" and continue your free preview you've had all along. Then if you sign up you can "continue to see these channels you've been seeing all along by adding DIRECTV HD Extra Pack to your programming." So then, if you sign up, you get 3 more months "free preview" of the channels you have already been free previewing all along. I suppose after those 3 months you have to start paying $4.99 a month.
> 
> Couldn't you just say that starting February 27th it's gonna cost you $4.99 a month to see these channels?


Unfortunately, one of the fine print items on the Customer Agreement is that prices are subject to change at any time .. You can of course vote with your wallet, but there is little other recourse I imagine.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MikeW said:


> People would be angered if DirecTV had opted everybody in and started charging $4.99 for the package.


Instead everyone is going to be ecstatic when they turn on one of the package channels that they've been getting for months and it comes up not purchased.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I just called csr and asked about hdextra and he told me after it is turned off the 15 
i can call and get it free for 3 mo. So i think i will do that and decide if i should keep it after the 3 mo.


----------



## facmgr6569 (Jan 5, 2007)

I recieved an email yesterday telling me it will be shut off after saturday and if I wanted to continue to go to the website and sign up and the first 3 months free. I have done this so you can get 3 months free right now.

FWIW I think it is still cheaper than the HD package with d* network


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Really confusing without having to be.
So now in February, is it going to be one of those deals where you have to call them and tell them you want out? And if you forget and don't they will automatically add it? A lot of companies are doing that now and I don't exactly know how they get away with it. It used to be you had to tell them you wanted a deal or service and then they started charging. Now if you don't tell them to stop it they automatically add it. They obviously are counting on you not remembering and then they get at least a month out of you. It's almost impossible to get Sports Illustrated cancelled because of this type of deal. They make it as hard as possible to cancel. I would think a lot of older folks get screwed in these type of deals.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Clearly stated...

On December 15th, the free preview of the HD Extra pack will be discontinued. If you do nothing, you will lose those channels.

If you wish to add the package to your account, you must call in or order it online. Once added to your account, you will get 3 months for free. Beginning with your March bill, you will be charged $4.99 /month. If you call and cancel the service by 2/27, you will not be charged for the service.

So...bottom line is no, they will not add the package automatically and no, unless you order the package, you will not see any additional charges on your bill.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I just signed up on web site and got 3 free hdextra mo. free 
Have to see what happins in 3 mo.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

I'll sign up on the 15th for 3 more free months and re-evaluate before the period ends.


----------



## Karen (Oct 4, 2007)

I'm going to keep the channels in my favorites list. When I see a program listed that I just have to see, I'll subscribe to the package. If I don't see one by the end of February, I'll take them out of my favorites list. If I remember... <g>


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

Just curious... after the 15th, will customers who only have the HR10-250, be paying $9.95 for just HDNet, ESPN HD & ESPN2HD?? I can see alot of customer cancellations from that group as well. Three channels for $9.95 oooo boy what a deal.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

jdh8668 said:


> Just curious... after the 15th, will customers who only have the HR10-250, be paying $9.95 for just HDNet, ESPN HD & ESPN2HD?? I can see alot of customer cancellations from that group as well. Three channels for $9.95 oooo boy what a deal.


You forgot Discovery HD Theater and TNT..... plus HBO and Showtime if you subscribe.  Not 100% sure what happens to the HR10 people. But if their channels are reduced, then they will either cancel or finally upgrade.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

jdh8668 said:


> Just curious... after the 15th, will customers who only have the HR10-250, be paying $9.95 for just HDNet, ESPN HD & ESPN2HD?? I can see alot of customer cancellations from that group as well. Three channels for $9.95 oooo boy what a deal.


Some of us did that for over a year. ESPN, HDNet, and Discovery HD Theater were the only channels in the $9.99 HD Pack.


----------



## Mike728 (Oct 29, 2007)

say-what said:


> You forgot Discovery HD Theater and TNT..... plus HBO and Showtime if you subscribe.  Not 100% sure what happens to the HR10 people. But if their channels are reduced, then they will either cancel or finally upgrade.


Or upgrade and keep it for OTA recording. 

It works great for $5/mo.


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

I happen to have both a HR10-250 and a HR20, but still have not received any correspondence from Directv about the package change. If I hadn't heard about it on this site, I wouldn't know anything was up. I wonder what percentage of people still haven't been contacted, and the one's that have been, did they only have receivers that pick up the new hd channels? If Directv hasn't notified everyone by the 15th, I can imagine their phone lines blowing up that day with all the people calling up asking what happened to their channels. That'll be a fustercluck.


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

TomMac said:


> Today's email was my first notification from D* concerning the new HD Extra package. If I were not a member of this board I would not have know about the new subscription tier.
> 
> A very poor way to do business.
> 
> :nono: :nono2:


I haven't received this email, so you should feel fortunate that you even received that.

I think we are gonna play it by ear. If we see something we wanna watch on those channels, we may subscribe. However, we have already determined that we have already hit our price ceiling with Directv. So if we add the HD Extra Pak(when we begin paying for it), we are going to be dropping out of the Premiere pak and dropping HBO and Showtime and just keep Starz.

IMO, this really is the only way to tell Directv enough is enough with the nickel and diming. Hit them where it hurts, their profits, as they will be losing money on me.


----------



## cover (Feb 11, 2007)

I have an HR20, but also still have an HR10 active. 

If I go to the web site to change programming, it says I have a package that they no longer offer, but I can keep it as long as I want. No other details.

Since I haven't received any correspondence, I'm wondering if I may be grandfathered in.

I guess I'll wait and see what happens on/after the 15th. It would be pretty crappy if they just turned off HDNet with no notice after I've been receiving it for a long time.

I'm not crazy about having to pay more, but I don't want to lose HDNet. Enterprise is better than I remembered, especially now that I can see it in HD ;-). It's also nice to see shuttle launches in HD.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

The grandfathered plan is Premier that includes the DVR functions. If you ever drop Premier and go back to it, you'll be charged a DVR fee. Expect to be disappointed on 12/15.

BTW...don't get too excited if the channels stay up for a few days or weeks. Remember that last year, when MLB started up, they gave us a free preview of Super Fan. The preview lasted about 3 weeks past it's posted expiration date, but it did end and we were forced to pay the extra $40 to see HD Baseball.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

Just wait till it goes black and complain loudly by calling or by EMAIL, I know they will offer the 3 months for free, but still let your voice be heard about the HD Extra channel shuffling...It will make its way up the chain of command..trust me...just clicking on the free promo solves nothing in the long run...maybe if enough people complain D" will rethink the plan...I know I will call when the day arrives....


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

warriorking said:


> Just wait till it goes black and complain loudly by calling or by EMAIL, I know they will offer the 3 months for free, but still let your voice be heard about the HD Extra channel shuffling...It will make its way up the chain of command..trust me...just clicking on the free promo solves nothing in the long run...maybe if enough people complain D" will rethink the plan...I know I will call when the day arrives....


It doesn't seem to be "well thought out". Having a free preview of new HD channels and then charging for them in some package, is understandable, but this "shell game" of moving what you paid for before to another package while adding new channels to your existing package, just seems to be trying to make problems/troubles for the older customers. Why do they want to do this? 
If they want to change their program packages, do it for the new customers. Let their older customers keep what they have and add/upgrade as they want to for "new" channels and not those they already were paying for over the past several years.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> If they want to change their program packages, do it for the new customers. Let their older customers keep what they have and add/upgrade as they want to for "new" channels and not those they already were paying for over the past several years.


Then what if they decided to leave the scant selection we had at $9.99 then tell call the HD package something else and charge us an additional $9.99.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

MikeW said:


> Then what if they decided to leave the scant selection we had at $9.99 then tell call the HD package something else and charge us an additional $9.99.


Imagine if the email was this:
Hurry, you only have until Saturday to preview this package of stunning HD-only channels, including MHD, HDNet Movies, MGM HD, Smithsonian Channel HD, and Universal HD. After the preview, you can continue to see these channels by adding DIRECTV HD Extra Pack to your programming.
*Get three free months* when you add the all-new DIRECTV HD Extra Pack by February 27. The regular price is just $4.99/mo.

DirecTV will continue to offer HDNet Movies and Universal HD to you, in appreciation for being a long time customer of our HD package.


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

does this addition mean you up your commitment 2 more years? I never was clear if changing packages changes your commitment or not


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Equipment changes change your commitment. 1 year for standard reciever, 2 years for DVR.

The only commitment associated with programming is premium channels. You must keep the premium channel for 30 days or you are charged a $10.00 downgrade fee. This is to prevent folks from signing up for Showtime to see a boxing match then turning it off the following day, thus paying about $.50 to see the one time event.


----------



## Bama (Apr 24, 2007)

warriorking said:


> Just wait till it goes black and complain loudly by calling or by EMAIL, I know they will offer the 3 months for free, but still let your voice be heard about the HD Extra channel shuffling...It will make its way up the chain of command..trust me...just clicking on the free promo solves nothing in the long run...maybe if enough people complain D" will rethink the plan...I know I will call when the day arrives....


Why do you insist on calling? E-mail if you must complain but don't call CSR's are not there to listen to your complaints nor can they do anything about your complaints. E-mail... E-mail...E-mail


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> DirecTV will continue to offer HDNet Movies and Universal HD to you, in appreciation for being a long time customer of our HD package.


Well VOS...now you're dreaming


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

MikeW said:


> Well VOS...now you're dreaming


Well it is the season to isn't it?


----------



## blueliner17 (Sep 6, 2006)

I've been reading this thread for awhile now, and my conclusion is "stop whining folks". I've been happy to pay $9.99 for HD since it was 8-9 channels and now I get around 50. 

Just pretend the HD extra pack is now a $5 discount off the original $9.99 HD price. Call it $9.99 for all the new channels and it seems like a good deal.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

blueliner17 said:


> I've been reading this thread for awhile now, and my conclusion is "stop whining folks". I've been happy to pay $9.99 for HD since it was 8-9 channels and now I get around 50.
> 
> Just pretend the HD extra pack is now a $5 discount off the original $9.99 HD price. Call it $9.99 for all the new channels and it seems like a good deal.


That makes good sense. It is a pity that D*'s marketing people couldn't have figured out a way to present it that didn't make people feel like they had been jobbed.

Telling them how to think about it "after the fact" is a day late and five dollars short.

This whole mess started when they proposed adding all these HD channels at no additional cost, followed by consistently inaccurate communication from D* regarding HDAccess and the HDExtra pack...not to mention the apparent bait and switch of re-tiering.

They could have screwed this up more, but not much.

All that said, I subscribed to the new tier...and am canceling my NFL-ST (which I've had since it first came on...in fact, before that on C-band). By getting rid of NFL-ST, I have more than paid for (several times over) the machinations of D* with regard to their pricing/tiering structure.

In fact, the more D* plays this game, the more I will respond to it. If they want to find ways to nickel and dime me to death, I'll just keep cutting my programming. When it gets to be too much, I'll look to another provider. Nothing personal....it's just business.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MikeW said:


> Equipment changes change your commitment. 1 year for standard reciever, 2 years for DVR.


The standard receiver commitment is now up to 18 months.


DIRECTV Lease Addendum said:


> PROGRAMMING COMMITMENT. The programming package(s) must be maintained for a period of not less than (a) eighteen (18) consecutive months (for accounts with only standard receiver(s)), or (b) twenty-four (24) consecutive months (for accounts with advanced product(s)/receiver(s) digital video recorder (DVR), high definition receiver (HD) or high definition digital video recorder (HD DVR), including additional DIRECTV receiver(s)).


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

If you sign up for the extra pack and get the 3 months free, can you get out of it fairly easy when the 3 months is up? Or will they say, "You've already signed up for the package". And if so, do you have to keep it for a certain amount of time before you can get out?


----------



## lman (Dec 21, 2006)

blueliner17 said:


> I've been reading this thread for awhile now, and my conclusion is "stop whining folks". I've been happy to pay $9.99 for HD since it was 8-9 channels and now I get around 50.
> 
> Just pretend the HD extra pack is now a $5 discount off the original $9.99 HD price. Call it $9.99 for all the new channels and it seems like a good deal.


I doesn't seem like a good deal to me, because I was told when I upgraded to HD a year ago that there would not be a price increase when new HD channels were added. Somebody fibbed. When I "upgraded" I also downgraded to the HR 20 that is missing DLB.


----------



## kaminsco (Nov 27, 2006)

blueliner17 said:


> I've been reading this thread for awhile now, and my conclusion is "stop whining folks". I've been happy to pay $9.99 for HD since it was 8-9 channels and now I get around 50.
> 
> Just pretend the HD extra pack is now a $5 discount off the original $9.99 HD price. Call it $9.99 for all the new channels and it seems like a good deal.


How do we pretend $14.98 is anything different than $14.98?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

blueliner17 said:


> Just pretend.....


I used to pretend when I was a child. 
I've stopped now that I'm an adult, as it's part of growing up.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

My only problem w the hdextra expence is it ok if they want to add extra channels
like smith,mgm, mhd that they said wer not symocast of the ones we allready 
paying for. then thoes are truley extra and we can choose if we like them enough to pay for them. i dont like that they thake channels from what we are paying for
its like saying if you dont want the new channe you will lose the ones we are paying for .i am really suprised at directy


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"I think" this really comes down to: How much revenue would be lost for the two channels [HDNet movies & Universal HD] to the older customers of the HD package, verses the "bad will" being generated?


----------



## lucky13 (Nov 27, 2006)

jdh8668 said:


> I happen to have both a HR10-250 and a HR20, but still have not received any correspondence from Directv about the package change. If I hadn't heard about it on this site, I wouldn't know anything was up. I wonder what percentage of people still haven't been contacted, and the one's that have been, did they only have receivers that pick up the new hd channels? If Directv hasn't notified everyone by the 15th, I can imagine their phone lines blowing up that day with all the people calling up asking what happened to their channels. That'll be a fustercluck.


I was thinking the same thing. I have 2 HR20s and an H20, and I also would not have known about the extra package if not for the ruckus here. Perhaps it was on one of the glossy inserts with my bill, but I hardly give those more than a cursory glance.

If DirecTV is shutting off channels its customers now have (as we understand), then I would expect some specific contact from the company to the customers. An email, or an on-screen message (heavily underused). I'm surprised there hasn't been a "barker channel" to sell this programing, as there is for the sports packages and the program guide. In fact, I'm waiting for the barker channel so I can order with my remote. Of course, I may keep waiting till the channels go black.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

lucky13 said:


> I was thinking the same thing. I have 2 HR20s and an H20, and I also would not have known about the extra package if not for the ruckus here. Perhaps it was on one of the glossy inserts with my bill, but I hardly give those more than a cursory glance.
> 
> If DirecTV is shutting off channels its customers now have (as we understand), then I would expect some specific contact from the company to the customers. An email, or an on-screen message (heavily underused). I'm surprised there hasn't been a "barker channel" to sell this programing, as there is for the sports packages and the program guide. In fact, I'm waiting for the barker channel so I can order with my remote. Of course, I may keep waiting till the channels go black.


Post #295 is the email I received from DirecTV with "me" adding the last line.
You can even click on the link in it to order the package.


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> You can even lick on the link in it to order the package.


I tried licking the link and all I got was a wet monitor screen.:lol:


----------



## lucky13 (Nov 27, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Post #295 is the email I received from DirecTV with "me" adding the last line.
> You can even lick on the link in it to order the package.


Too bad. I liked your edit.

It's not that I can't figure out how to order it--just surprised that DirecTV hasn't pushed it more.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

frederic1943 said:


> I tried licking the link and all I got was a wet monitor screen.:lol:


My dyslexia is showing. oops. :blush:


----------



## lucky13 (Nov 27, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> My dyslexia is showing. oops. :blush:


Please, keep that tucked in and out of sight!


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

What worries me is that all of this is just setting a pricing trend for the future and I am also not very pleased that 80% of my so called HD programming is really just shrunk or streched SD. Just wait till Directv gets out of the Beta test stage and has a reliable HD platform


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

dreadlk said:


> What worries me is that all of this is just setting a pricing trend for the future and I am also not very pleased that 80% of my so called HD programming is really just shrunk or streched SD. Just wait till Directv gets out of the Beta test stage and has a reliable HD platform


Their HD programming isn't in a "Beta Test Stage"...

They can't help the fact that the content providers are not pushing out more HD content. They can only deliver what they are given to deliver.


----------



## sbrennan007 (Oct 14, 2007)

blueliner17 said:


> I've been reading this thread for awhile now, and my conclusion is "stop whining folks". I've been happy to pay $9.99 for HD since it was 8-9 channels and now I get around 50.
> 
> Just pretend the HD extra pack is now a $5 discount off the original $9.99 HD price. Call it $9.99 for all the new channels and it seems like a good deal.


It's thinking like this that companies hope for. If people stood up and said "NO", companies would soon see that they can't pull this kind of B.S.

I've had the Platinum package now for the past 10 years with 5 receivers so I'm already paying a good deal to watch T.V. I think it's crappy business on DTV's part to charge an extra $9.99 for HD and then another $5 for additional HD channels.

As I'm already paying over $100 per month, I'm not so much complaining about the extra, it's the principle of it that gets me.

To me it's simply another case of Corporate greed. And so long as you have people waiting in line to just pay 'whatever', 'just because', they'd be stupid to not charge people for it. :nono2:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> What worries me is that all of this is just setting a pricing trend for the future and I am also not very pleased that 80% of my so called HD programming is really just shrunk or streched SD. Just wait till Directv gets out of the Beta test stage and has a reliable HD platform


Your "HD Programming" is the responsibility of the content provider on the "HD Channel" that DIRECTV is delivering to you.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

By Beta HD I mean the HR2x and H2x series receivers.
Once Directv gets the receivers working properly and no longer has to appologize for all the problems they will then turn there attention towards charging more for the service. Wanna make a bet???



Earl Bonovich said:


> Their HD programming isn't in a "Beta Test Stage"...
> 
> They can't help the fact that the content providers are not pushing out more HD content. They can only deliver what they are given to deliver.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

dreadlk said:


> By Beta HD I mean the HR2x and H2x series receivers.
> Once Directv gets the receivers working properly and no longer has to appologize for all the problems they will then turn there attention towards charging more for the service. Wanna make a bet???


Well considering that it is a natural inclination that as the content providers want more money for their programming... (which is only going to go up, as the production companies are now going to have to pay more for their content).

It is a given that prices are going to increase at DirecTV.
Anyone that doesn't think that... well.. is just kidding themselves.

As for their HR2X series being in Beta.... you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Dazed & Confused (Jun 13, 2007)

While I have been a DirecTV subscriber since 1996, I have only had HD since May. In that time the only channel from the Extra Pack I have actually watched is the Smithsonian, so the decision is pretty simple. Given the amount of programming they have I can sign up once a year for a month, and see everything they have to offer.

Since 267 went live those god****ed giant pandas have been on so much that the bamboo forest they live in should be barren by now.


----------



## kaminsco (Nov 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Their HD programming isn't in a "Beta Test Stage"...
> 
> They can't help the fact that the content providers are not pushing out more HD content. They can only deliver what they are given to deliver.


So what does the $9.99 HD access fee give us? Access to programming that is barely HD?


----------



## laurie_lu (Dec 2, 2007)

A year from now, what other channels will they remove from my existing HD package and make me pay extra for?


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

laurie_lu said:


> A year from now, what other channels will they remove from my existing HD package and make me pay extra for?


As many as you're willing to pay extra for. They can't MAKE you pay anything. I sent an email to Mark Cuban telling him that I was disappointed that he settled the suit, but that I wasn't willing to pay $5 more per month for HDNet Movies. He responded within a couple of hours that I should voice my displeasure to DirecTV. I've already done that. It's about as effective as spitting in the ocean. A lot of people voting with their wallets is more effective.


----------



## Inches (Jan 5, 2005)

Dazed & Confused said:


> While I have been a DirecTV subscriber since 1996, I have only had HD since May. In that time the only channel from the Extra Pack I have actually watched is the Smithsonian, so the decision is pretty simple. Given the amount of programming they have I can sign up once a year for a month, and see everything they have to offer.
> 
> Since 267 went live those god****ed giant pandas have been on so much that the bamboo forest they live in should be barren by now.


Bamboo grows fast so they will not run out of vittles.

What ever happened to this extra fee for the HD package?? Looked over the DirecTV site and I don't find a thing about it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Inches said:


> Bamboo grows fast so they will not run out of vittles.
> 
> What ever happened to this extra fee for the HD package?? Looked over the DirecTV site and I don't find a thing about it.


It seems the HD pack has been folded into the the higher cost programing package, while the HD extra pack is still there.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

oakwcj said:


> As many as you're willing to pay extra for. They can't MAKE you pay anything. I sent an email to Mark Cuban telling him that I was disappointed that he settled the suit, but that I wasn't willing to pay $5 more per month for HDNet Movies. He responded within a couple of hours that I should voice my displeasure to DirecTV. I've already done that. It's about as effective as spitting in the ocean. A lot of people voting with their wallets is more effective.


All HD services, regardless of the provider, is about choices. That's why we have various cable, Dish, and DirecTV services.

I've chosen to get the expanded HD channels for the extra $4.99 because I believe the content there is worth it. Others may not agree. That's the beauty of it, everyone has a choice in the matter.

Think of the cable model - pay for many things you don't want or won't view, and pay anyway. Again, it's about choices.

It's good that you voiced your opinion, as many do not take the time to do so. that said, unless there is a large outcry on the matter, don't look for things to change.

It's also important to note that while the "extra" $4.99 package is currently for a small inventory of HD channels, that list may grow in the future.

How soon we forget. I certainly remember paying $9.99 for over a year for the HD package itself for only a limited number of programming channels. Now look what you get for the same $9.99.

It would have been my preference to simply have an HD package that includes everything HD (and perhaps even a $14.99 total price tag if needed) - at least now with all the HD channels, we are getting much more bang for the buck. My total bill is still less than a neighbor who has his cable "HD package" of 16 HD channels. Choices.


----------



## Randy Englehart (Dec 6, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I too can't get a straight answer from even a supervisor at DirecTV.
> She knew "nothing" about channels being dropped or costing more, other than my Total Choice plus programing package is now "obsolete"? Say What?
> I haven't changed my programing package in four years. The last time I did was when HDNet changed from free to having to pay for the "HD package" [yeah, all six of them at the time :lol: ].
> I'm still paying for the HD package, if they want to drop the MGM, Smithsonian, etc. from my "free preview", fine, but charging me $5 for part of a package I already have? I don't think so. Somewhere I think "grandfathered" comes in to play.
> ...


I just wrote a letter to Direct and told them I thought they might be running a bait and switch even before I read this thread. A friend at work who has the HDDVR plus package as I do said his wife called this morning to say that Smithsonian and others have been disconnected. I am only two weeks into my DIRECT subscription. The only so called promotional channels I am getting are the 3 free mo. HBO/SHOWTIME/STARZ AND CINEMAX. They are saying the HD Extra pack that includes Smithsonian is promotional and will cost an extra $5.00. The sales staff that sold me this subscription touted the Smithsonian channel but never mentioned it was on a promotional basis only. No company should be able to get away with this type of fraud.


----------



## Randy Englehart (Dec 6, 2007)

MikeW said:


> Yes, they could say it'll be $4.99 starting 2/27, but how do they communicate this? Also, how do they ensure the customer can give an affirmative yes or no to the package with as little confrontation as possible?
> 
> I see it as forward thinking. People would be angered if DirecTV had opted everybody in and started charging $4.99 for the package. This way, they turn the channels off, you call in to complain about the lost channels and they can offer you 3 more months free and, as a customer, you have agreed to opt in, you get another discount and you can shut it off if you decide that it is too much money.
> 
> There certainly is no simple solution to making a major change, and this seems like a win/win to get this package launched. Certainly, if you're going to want more, you'll have to pay a little more....right?


I disagree. They advertise to new customers that they are adding all of these new HD channels but never mention that everytime they add channels they are going to add to your bill as well. If that is the case they need to tell "new" customers such as myself that new channels "will be made available". There is a difference between "adding channels" and having "channels available."


----------



## razorback9926 (Oct 8, 2007)

vankai said:


> I'm curious if D* would hypothetically give us a choice of keeping the same channels for that original $10 and none of the new stuff or pay $15 for 2 tiers to include all HD content?


But how many of us would have paid $10 for HD service knowing we would only get the original few channels (HDNet, TNT, ESPN) and never anything more? I wouldn't have, I can only watch Law and Order so many times. I signed up for HD because they promised me a ton of new HD channels in the near future.

I'm not that upset by losing the few channels they just took away because none of them are "biggies" for me. But I think it's an ugly thing by DirecTV to do, they should have grandfathered in an extra year for us longtime HD subscribers.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I happily signed up to pay my $5 extra.

Just by way of contrast to some of the negative posts.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I'm on the fence yet...I _really_ like MHD and may do it for that channel alone...maybe not. See, I'm on th efence.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Sit on the fence too long, and it brings on hemorrhoids.....



smiddy said:


> I'm on the fence yet...I _really_ like MHD and may do it for that channel alone...maybe not. See, I'm on th efence.


----------



## laramr (Oct 21, 2005)

Losing MHD sucks.


----------



## steely (Nov 8, 2006)

was over at my dads house today and he still has the channels that they moved to the extra pack. have they turned off the "freeview" yet. if they havent maybe he is in the 2% that is supposedly grandfathered?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

laramr said:


> Losing MHD sucks.


MHD was always part of HD Extra Pack, which was just on a free-view till now... you can still get it for the next 3 months for free.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

steely said:


> was over at my dads house today and he still has the channels that they moved to the extra pack. have they turned off the "freeview" yet. if they havent maybe he is in the 2% that is supposedly grandfathered?


What equipment does he have...
if he doesn't have any MPEG-4 equipment.... then he is grandfathered.

If he does... have him check his account, he may have signed up for it when he activated service.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> Sit on the fence too long, and it brings on hemorrhoids.....


Or worse, splinters... :eek2:


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> Sit on the fence too long, and it brings on hemorrhoids.....


Thanks Confucius :lol:


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

I suggest that similar to a prostrate exam, while we're bent over we better start gritting our teeth - its going to get deeper. . . With D*'s track record does anyone really think that these are the only channels that are going to be "moved" to the $5 extra pack?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> I suggest that similar to a prostrate exam, while we're bent over we better start gritting our teeth - its going to get deeper. . . With D*'s track record does anyone really think that these are the only channels that are going to be "moved" to the $5 extra pack?


Yes, I think these are the only channels that will be "moved" to the $5 extra pack.
Given DirecTV's track record.... how many times has this happened?
That channels were moved from one package to another..... Not many... I can only think of a few... and most of those cases, they came from HIGHER packages, down to lower packages.

And the only two that where "moved" where HDMovies and Universal..
And technically they were placed... since the package they were in, doesn't exist anymore.

The only cavet I will put on that... is when HDNet's contract is renewed... since HDNet was supposed to be in the HD Extra Pack, but DirecTV negotiated with HDNet to have it not be part of that.

That doesn't mean there won't be more channels added to this HD Extra Pack... or an HD Extra Pack 2 isn't created for future channels.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

"Yes, I think these are the only channels that will be "moved" to the $5 extra pack."

"That doesn't mean there won't be more channels added to this HD Extra Pack"... or an HD Extra Pack 2 isn't created for future channels.

So now we begin the discussion to analyze the technical differences of "added" vs. "moved" aren't we? Again it depends on what the word "is" is.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jjohns said:


> I suggest that similar to a prostrate exam, while we're bent over we better start gritting our teeth - its going to get deeper. . . With D*'s track record does anyone really think that these are the only channels that are going to be "moved" to the $5 extra pack?


What track record are you talking about when it comes to doing this?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> What track record are you talking about when it comes to doing this?


Let me say this about that.

Here comes that HD Extra Pack 2. . . 
Are you gritting your teeth yet?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> Sit on the fence too long, and it brings on hemorrhoids.....


Ouch! :lol:


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

JeffBowser said:


> I happily signed up to pay my $5 extra.
> 
> Just by way of contrast to some of the negative posts.


Me too.. well maybe not happily. Although the AAA discount pays for it this year and next, so 2 years+ free HD Extra pack IMO.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Aye, well, perhaps "happily" was too strong a word. I'd rather not have to pay more, but I don't mind too much, either. This is a non-essential service, a luxury, if you will, and like all luxury goods, one pays a premium.



Tom_S said:


> Me too.. well maybe not happily. Although the AAA discount pays for it this year and next, so 2 years+ free HD Extra pack IMO.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jjohns said:


> Let me say this about that.
> 
> Here comes that HD Extra Pack 2. . .
> Are you gritting your teeth yet?


Thats speculation that COULD happen, but there have been no statements that this is happening any time soon if at all.

That still doesnt point out any "track record" to back up what you said.


----------



## Reggie3 (Feb 20, 2006)

chrpai said:


> Fair enough, *EXCEPT* that D* promised to deliver these channels for years and also promised that they wouldn't be raising the price. Don't blame me for being a little bitter, THEY set the expectation.
> 
> It seem's that they want it both ways. They want to string customers along with promises and then not have us get upset when they change the deal.


Got to agree with you there. They are screwing over us long time customers who stuck with them waiting for the day of multi HD channels on D* when other providers had a order of magnitude more HD channels.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

They move 5 channels out of 60 or 70 or so added, and that is "screwing us over" ? 



Reggie3 said:


> Got to agree with you there. They are screwing over us long time customers who stuck with them waiting for the day of multi HD channels on D* when other providers had a order of magnitude more HD channels.


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

Reggie3 said:


> Got to agree with you there. They are screwing over us long time customers who stuck with them waiting for the day of multi HD channels on D* when other providers had a order of magnitude more HD channels.


Well without the 5 channels of the Extra pack you still have more than any other provider. So "screwing over" is a little over the top eh?


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Here is my reasons for being against hdextra
1 money
2 having to sign a two year commitment w/o price protection and program freeze.
in my case anyway because of equipment upgrade.
3 d* moving channels from base package and putting them in hdextra to make it larger
4 even if i did not want hd extra i would loose hdmovie net and universal
i guess thats all i feel D* is the best tv service provider out there i just hope they
listen to all there cust. iam glad they are getting pbs hd i just hope it dont go in 
hdextra.


----------



## skohly (Mar 14, 2007)

gfrang said:


> Here is my reasons for being against hdextra
> 1 money
> 2 having to sign a two year commitment w/o price protection and program freeze.
> in my case anyway because of equipment upgrade.
> ...


Who said you have to sign a 2 year comitmitment to get the extra HD channels?


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

skohly said:


> Who said you have to sign a 2 year comitmitment to get the extra HD channels?


sory i ment they started hdextra long after i signed the contract and moved the other channels and i was commited.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

Well, I just read this whole (amusing) thread and while I can somewhat understand the 'principal' of it, I can't help but laugh at some of the responses. Good grief folks, it's $4.99 *a month*. Do you all go on e-mail writing sprees and threaten to boycott the oil companies when it suddenly costs $10+ more to fill up your tank *each time*? I don't know about the rest of you, but my time is worth something, and some of the whining from the same people over and over would have eaten up about 5 years worth of that extra charge in time wasted posting the complaints.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

poppo said:


> Well, I just read this whole (amusing) thread and while I can somewhat understand the 'principal' of it, I can't help but laugh at some of the responses. Good grief folks, it's $4.99 *a month*.


That is true, and just about everyone (I would assume everyone who actually has DirecTV service) could afford to squeeze out an extra $4.99 a month. That doesn't mean they should.

However, it is more than simply $4.99 a month. My monthly payment to DirecTV is rapidly approaching $120 a month. It's the cumulative effect, not the individual pieces, that makes me stop to evaluate if I am getting my money's worth, and to decide (on a recurring basis) how much I am willing to spend each month for television programming. And I personally am really at my limit for what I consider television to be worth.

Carl


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> They move 5 channels out of 60 or 70 or so added, and that is "screwing us over" ?


It is if they removed the 5 best eye candy channels. Do you think anybody would be complaining if they took 5 of the Stretcho HD channels? Do you think anybody would pay $4.99 for 5 of the stretcho vision channels? Exactly and that's why they choose these 5 channels and thats why we know we have been Screwed!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

dreadlk said:


> It is if they removed the 5 best eye candy channels. Do you think anybody would be complaining if they took 5 of the Stretcho HD channels? Do you think anybody would pay $4.99 for 5 of the stretcho vision channels? Exactly and that's why they choose these 5 channels and thats why we know we have been Screwed!


You are so wrong as to how they picked the channels. But you are welcome to maintain that wrong opinion if you so choose. 

Yes, the channels that have only existed as pure HD channels are likely to be the best looking as they have no SD content to deal with. And since they aren't covered by an SD contract to help offset the channel costs from a base package, they are put into their own package.

Happy Holidays!
Tom


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> You are so wrong as to how they picked the channels. But you are welcome to maintain that wrong opinion if you so choose.
> 
> Yes, the channels that have only existed as pure HD channels are likely to be the best looking as they have no SD content to deal with. And since they aren't covered by an SD contract to help offset the channel costs from a base package, they are put into their own package.
> 
> ...


Thank you Tom.


----------



## cody21 (Sep 26, 2007)

carl6 said:


> That is true, and just about everyone (I would assume everyone who actually has DirecTV service) could afford to squeeze out an extra $4.99 a month. That doesn't mean they should.
> 
> However, it is more than simply $4.99 a month. My monthly payment to DirecTV is rapidly approaching $120 a month. It's the cumulative effect, not the individual pieces, that makes me stop to evaluate if I am getting my money's worth, and to decide (on a recurring basis) how much I am willing to spend each month for television programming. And I personally am really at my limit for what I consider television to be worth.
> 
> Carl


Exactly how I feel about this. My bill is appproaching $130/month. I jumped from cable 11 years ago for the same tactics that Cable was using. Sorry for everyone that does not agree with those of us that feel this way, but it it very very Cable-like anymore. I would think that for those of us that subscribe to their top-tier package (Premier / $99 mo.) as well as their HD Pkg $9.99 mo.), plus a DVR fee ($4.99 mo.), plus a Lease fee ($4.99 each receiver) -- this should be included. But alas, it's all about the bottom line.... IMHO


----------



## esteeze (Oct 20, 2006)

(sigh) I just found out about the channel tier switch this morning when I went to watch a program on the HD Movie Network. Called customer service, because I thought it was a technical problem; alas...
:eek2: 

I read through all the posts on this forum (which I was referred to from the DirecTV tech support forum). Not sure how I feel about it... I think I'll wait a few days. I see everyone's point.


----------



## steely (Nov 8, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What equipment does he have...
> if he doesn't have any MPEG-4 equipment.... then he is grandfathered.
> 
> If he does... have him check his account, he may have signed up for it when he activated service.


He has H20-100 and AU9. He has had this since about March of this year with no changes made to his account since. Dont know if this matters but he has his service through Verizon in a package deal with DSL and phone. I told him tonight that he might lose them or see a new charge on his bill, of course he knows nothing about the changes that D* made so clear to all its viewers. But as of now they are still on.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

steely said:


> He has H20-100 and AU9. He has had this since about March of this year with no changes made to his account since. Dont know if this matters but he has his service through Verizon in a package deal with DSL and phone. I told him tonight that he might lose them or see a new charge on his bill, of course he knows nothing about the changes that D* made so clear to all its viewers. But as of now they are still on.


It may have something to do with Verizon... not sure though


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

carl6 said:


> That is true, and just about everyone (I would assume everyone who actually has DirecTV service) could afford to squeeze out an extra $4.99 a month. That doesn't mean they should.
> 
> However, it is more than simply $4.99 a month. My monthly payment to DirecTV is rapidly approaching $120 a month. It's the cumulative effect, not the individual pieces, that makes me stop to evaluate if I am getting my money's worth, and to decide (on a recurring basis) how much I am willing to spend each month for television programming. And I personally am really at my limit for what I consider television to be worth.
> 
> Carl


Another thing to think about is that the $4.99/month for HD-Extra is far less than what my state charges for taxes on my satellite bill. I really wish those who are REALLY upset about the new package would be just as angry against state legislators that charge me while I get nothing in return and use no government service.

Who knows? If state representatives would get the same angry calls that some Directv customers are making it might actually have an impact and we'd see our bills go down $8-9 a month.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

durl said:


> I really wish those who are REALLY upset about the new package would be just as angry against state legislators that charge me while I get nothing in return and use no government service.


With all the things we see today, one can't be blamed for being anti-government. Having said that, I personally know my family and I would be in a heap of trouble if we stopped receiving all or even a portion of the services our state provides through our tax dollars.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

durl said:


> If state representatives would get the same angry calls that some Directv customers are making it might actually have an impact and we'd see our bills go down $8-9 a month.


The major cable companies tried to lobby that "crap" here too. The taxes cable charges is for the public right away [using utility poles] to send their service. Since SAT providers don't use the right away, in this state it didn't fly. The air ways are free [the FCC licenses transmitters].
It seems your state decided to "grab some gold", which might be a legal issue if someone were to challenge it.


----------



## smith13 (Aug 17, 2007)

poppo said:


> Well, I just read this whole (amusing) thread and while I can somewhat understand the 'principal' of it, I can't help but laugh at some of the responses. Good grief folks, it's $4.99 *a month*. Do you all go on e-mail writing sprees and threaten to boycott the oil companies when it suddenly costs $10+ more to fill up your tank *each time*? I don't know about the rest of you, but my time is worth something, and some of the whining from the same people over and over would have eaten up about 5 years worth of that extra charge in time wasted posting the complaints.


Well I already have an average bill of about 110.00 per month. Not including sunday ticket. And I already pay for HD programming so why should I have to pay extra for channels that I was already getting??

Also it is only 4.99 extra for this and then it will only be 4.99 extra for that and before you know it you are paying 4.99 extra for way too many things. I paid 10 bucks a month for an hd package for about 2 years now and was only getting a few hd channels. So now they should at least give me the hd extra pack for at the same amount of time I paid extra for the basic hd package.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

smith13 said:


> Also it is only 4.99 extra for this and then it will only be 4.99 extra for that and before you know it you are paying 4.99 extra for way too many things. I paid 10 bucks a month for an hd package for about 2 years now and was only getting a few hd channels. So now they should at least give me the hd extra pack for at the same amount of time I paid extra for the basic hd package.


The HD Extra pack is optional, right? So don't get it. There are a lot of people (myself included) who have been paying $9.99 for the HD for a LOT longer than 2 years and that's a choice I made back then. I have no dillusion that it should entitle me to anything now just because I've paid that for a while.

Costs too much, don't get it. Pretty easy.

Sorry to sound jaded, but WAY too many posts in the last few months from people that feel they are entitled to something for subscribing in the past. Things have changed and it's a new ballgame. We all have the choice to play or not.


----------



## clevfandad (May 24, 2007)

Has anyone who does want the HD Pak figured out how to order it on the website? I've been through "change programing" "new Packages" etc. and found no way to add the Pak to my programming.


----------



## chris0 (Jun 25, 2007)

clevfandad said:


> Has anyone who does want the HD Pak figured out how to order it on the website? I've been through "change programing" "new Packages" etc. and found no way to add the Pak to my programming.


Once you login, on the left, under "My Account" click on "Change Programming." Then, in the upper middle of the screen, click on the "Services" tab. The HD Extra Pack should be there, fourth one down.


----------



## Smooth Jazzer (Sep 5, 2007)

chris0 said:


> Once you login, on the left, under "My Account" click on "Change Programming." Then, in the upper middle of the screen, click on the "Services" tab. The HD Extra Pack should be there, fourth one down.


You can also do it using the phone automated menu.


----------



## clevfandad (May 24, 2007)

Thanks ChrisO. That worked. Strange, though, the "services" option box was blank until I waved the cursor over it. No wondr I missed it. Maybe because I have an older Total Choice package. Appreciate the help.


----------



## katzeye (May 1, 2007)

I'm down at a family members for the holiday, and something weird has occurred. For some reason he is now getting Universal HD and HDNET movies, even though he has not subscribed to the Extra Pack. The channels had disapeard last week when the pack was upgraded. It seems to be just those two channels, he does not get MGM or Smithsonian, or MHD. Of course I shouldn't say anything because it will just jinx it. But is anyone else getting this?


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Smooth Jazzer said:


> You can also do it using the phone automated menu.


When I went thru the automated menu, it sent me to a CSR after I made my choices.

Then the CSR dropped me from Premier to the PlusDVR HD package for some reason when he added the Extra pack, and I had to call later and get Premier back.

I still don't know if they will now start adding the DVR fee to my bill--they shouldn't since I am grandfathered.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

katzeye said:


> I'm down at a family members for the holiday, and something weird has occurred. For some reason he is now getting Universal HD and HDNET movies, even though he has not subscribed to the Extra Pack. The channels had disapeard last week when the pack was upgraded. It seems to be just those two channels, he does not get MGM or Smithsonian, or MHD. Of course I shouldn't say anything because it will just jinx it. But is anyone else getting this?


What kind of equipment do they have?
If they have just MPEG-2 HD equipment, then that is what they are supposed to be getting.


----------



## bigbaddog9999 (Sep 26, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> The HD Extra pack is optional, right? So don't get it. There are a lot of people (myself included) who have been paying $9.99 for the HD for a LOT longer than 2 years and that's a choice I made back then. I have no dillusion that it should entitle me to anything now just because I've paid that for a while.
> 
> Costs too much, don't get it. Pretty easy.


We all made a choice when we added HD...a choice based on promises of future enhancements and no mentions of "optional" HD packs. Would I have made the choice to invest in new hardware, monthly HD fees and a 2 year commitment if they were not promising the enhancements? No way. Would I make the same choice if they said that they were going to carve up the HD channels into separate packs? Probably not.

This is not about costing too much. It is about being sucked in by a marketing campaign, committing to stay for 2 years and then having to pay more to get the promised level of service. Isn't that type of behavior why most of us switched to D* in the first place?


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Baby and bath water to me.

If people are going to go so far as to cancel service over the $4.99 HD Extra pack, more power to 'em. Me, I'm going to sit back a while, see how this all plays out and look at things again once things settle down.

If D11 launches well (or should I say "when"), and if new HD comes on line and makes the HD Extra Pack more than just 5 channels for $4.99, I wouldn't be too suprised. If it doesn't, then I look at whether the channels in it are worth the money to me (I couldn't understand people paying upwards of $9 a month or whatever for 3 channels of Skinemax, either). Would any of that have been the deal breaker for me going ahead with a decision to go with DirecTV? Not in the least since they have come through on over 70 channels of HD for the same $9.99 that it had been.

I don't begrudge anybody their right to do so, but man it seems like there are an awful lot of people getting their undies in a bunch over all this! I'll look back six months from now - when we are beyond the massive HD transition period - and judge from then. Until then, I'll do what makes sense for rme now.

Maybe my attitude about this stems from the fact that I am content in getting the HD I am getting and have been and intend to remain a DirecTV customer for a long time to come. I certainly don't feel I'm being screwed over or lied to and I want to leave. If others feel that way, I hope you can find peace with things somehow - be that leaving or whatever.


----------



## katzeye (May 1, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What kind of equipment do they have?
> If they have just MPEG-2 HD equipment, then that is what they are supposed to be getting.


No, he has the HR20-700


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Their account was probably flagged incorrectly with the special line item, they are using for MPEG-2HD only accounts...

Which still grants access to those two channels, but not the others


----------



## katzeye (May 1, 2007)

Makes sense, 
Thanks Earl.
BTW, you're the man!


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Bill Johnson said:


> With all the things we see today, one can't be blamed for being anti-government. Having said that, I personally know my family and I would be in a heap of trouble if we stopped receiving all or even a portion of the services our state provides through our tax dollars.


I really don't mean to derail the thread into sounding anti-government. My post was to bring attention to the fact that the state charges a tax on my satellite service but that money is not a "user fee" per se. It's simply a charge to me because I own a satellite dish. It's even called a "privilege tax" if you can believe that.

I wanted to point out that there are other fees to get upset about besides a package rework by Directv.


----------



## kevc66 (Oct 13, 2006)

I have the old Premier package, that includes the grandfathered free dvr service. 
Will adding these channels online screw up my free dvr service? Has anyone with the same package as mine asked a csr about this situation?


----------



## Xer0dIn (Mar 30, 2007)

I noticed that Universal HD and HDNet Movies dissapared the other night. I called thinking that there was a problem, I've had to call several times due to 721 errors when I'm supposed to be getting a channel that shows 721, I have the primere pack and 9.99 hd access. When I signed up with D* I specifficaly asked if the 9.99 would stay the same when they added new HD channels in the future, I was told yes. Well when I called about the 721 issue on Universal HD I was informed I would have to pay 4.99 more a month. I told the CSR that's not gonna fly and I need to talk to someone in the retention department. Now I'm getting 15 months free of the HD Extra pack. I guess that's better than nothing.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

kevc66 said:


> I have the old Premier package, that includes the grandfathered free dvr service.
> Will adding these channels online screw up my free dvr service? Has anyone with the same package as mine asked a csr about this situation?


We have been specifically told that adding this subscription to your base package will not affect any grandfathered base package. It is just like a sports subscription that layers on top of your base. This came from the TechKnowGuides forum at DIRECTV.com

That doesn't mean the CSRs won't make some mistakes, but they should be repairable.

You can also go onto the DIRECTV.com website and add this package to your base package.

Good luck,
Tom


----------



## kevc66 (Oct 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> We have been specifically told that adding this subscription to your base package will not affect any grandfathered base package. It is just like a sports subscription that layers on top of your base. This came from the TechKnowGuides forum at DIRECTV.com
> 
> That doesn't mean the CSRs won't make some mistakes, but they should be repairable.
> 
> ...


Thanks Tom!!!


----------



## jspanitz (Aug 26, 2006)

cody21 said:


> Exactly how I feel about this. My bill is appproaching $130/month. I jumped from cable 11 years ago for the same tactics that Cable was using. Sorry for everyone that does not agree with those of us that feel this way, but it it very very Cable-like anymore. I would think that for those of us that subscribe to their top-tier package (Premier / $99 mo.) as well as their HD Pkg $9.99 mo.), plus a DVR fee ($4.99 mo.), plus a Lease fee ($4.99 each receiver) -- this should be included. But alas, it's all about the bottom line.... IMHO


I couldn't read any more of this thread and not chime in. I'm in the exact same situation with the programming. And I committed to the HR20 exactly 1 year and 1 month ago because of the commitment DirecTV made to deliver all the new HD channels for the same 9.99 I would be paying from the start.

The CSR never told me that included in my 9.99 for 10 or so HD channels, which contained HDNet, Universal, etc., was a "Extra" teir being generously given to me free of charge as a preview until the new HD channels rolled out.

And I have to agree that the early days of the HR20 were definitely BETA. My Tivo based unit never had the problems the HR20 did. It wasn't ready for prime time.

So between overpaying for 10 HD, oops, 7 or so HD channels and the "FREE" "Extra" HD Channels for a year and being a hardware guinea pig, I would think they could grandfather me in. Taking channels away I previously had and paid for and making them "EXTRA" really is "EXTRA" reason to look elsewhere.


----------



## Bista-Buster (Apr 15, 2006)

So, the goal is to get all HD channels out there. Pretty soon, there will be nothing but HD channels which leads me to the question(s). 

If all channels are HD and customers still operate the TiVo SD units or any other SD units, will there be a price difference between the two?

How about NFL HD access channels for an extra $99.00 or $49.00? Can't remember the correct price. Since everything is being broadcast in HD anyway, which is in the direction we're heading anyway, will there be a special price still to get the HD games or will they increase the price to include the $99.00 price tag added to the NFLST?

Seeing how DTV keeps changing the rules often, this kind of stuff wouldn't surprise me a bit.


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

Bista-Buster said:


> So, the goal is to get all HD channels out there. Pretty soon, there will be nothing but HD channels which leads me to the question(s).


i think the goal is digital channels, not HD


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

If they hadn't lied about it it wouldn't be so bad, just another change. 

Where they misled all their long time subs as well as new subs alike is just sad.

This isn't a money issue, it's a DirectTV is starting to act like a cable company issue. 

For anyone at DirectTV that may be reading this, it was lies from Adelphia that got us to you. Hopefully a year from now I won't be posting it was lies from DirectTV that got us to you on the FIOS forums.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

wavemaster said:


> If they hadn't lied about it it wouldn't be so bad, just another change.
> 
> Where they misled all their long time subs as well as new subs alike is just sad.
> 
> ...


If you can find where they _promised_ never to change any of their programming packages ever, I'd like to see it. I've have yet to see a guaranty that I'll always get the same channels for ever and ever without any changes.

Exactly what are you saying they lied about? Are you saying that at the time of the investor's meeting, the guy absolutely knew they were going to create this package (with channels that didn't even exist at the time), but said otherwise? As it stands now, you _can_ still get HD for $9.99 a month above your regular DirecTV programming cost. Just don't sign up for HD extra package.

I choose to get "Choice" and the "Choice Extra", above the base "Family" package, because there are channels I want in those packages. If I want to get the channels at these levels of programming, I am forced to pay for them. In that same vein, if I want DirecTV, I am forced to pay for it. I could just as easily choose not to get any of the above. I choose _not_ to pay for the "HD Extra Pack".

I agree that DirecTV handled this very poorly, but I don't think they lied. I think it was either bad communications, a case of misspeak, or poor planning on their part, but I don't think it was an outright lie with an intention of deliberately trying mislead investors or the public. What would be the motivation for telling such a lie at an investor's meeting?

But definitely, if you are not happy with DirecTV, you should look to other providers like FiOS. In 18 months, when my contract is up, I will be seriously considering the switch as well. FiOS should be a more mature product, and it will be available to me at that time. Competition is a good thing.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

jspanitz said:


> I couldn't read any more of this thread and not chime in. I'm in the exact same situation with the programming. And I committed to the HR20 *exactly 1 year and 1 month ago* because of the commitment DirecTV made to deliver all the new HD channels for the same 9.99 I would be paying from the start.
> 
> The CSR never told me that included in my 9.99 for 10 or so HD channels, which contained HDNet, Universal, etc., was a "Extra" teir being generously given to me free of charge as a preview until the new HD channels rolled out.


That's because a year ago that wasn't even the case. A year ago you paid $9.99 for the HD Access Package (as I've been doing for a lot longer than a year).

In the last several months the HD landscape has changed drastically and DirecTV is realigning packages. No "lies" from a year ago - a year ago it was how it was.

(jspanitz, the following is not directed specifically at you...)

Man, my head must be ultra-dense. I don't understand all the "I was lied to" language being tossed around. Until D10 lit up, we had about 7, 10, whatever # of HD channels. Now there are 10 times that amount. So DirecTV instituted a package of HD-exclusive channels. Fine. I can understand some communication problems with people who signed up in the last few months as things were definitely in flux and the CSRs seem to arrive at many different flavors of whatever the actual truth about things is until things shake out. For those that have had HD for some time now, there was a 'free trial' period put in place until December 15th. Then, if you signed up for the Extra Pack after that, you get three more months free. The way I figure DirecTV gave a six-month warning that there would be an extra charge for the realigned HD Extra package. You want it after that, you know what it costs. You don't want it or don't want to pay for it? Cancel it and you don't have to pay for it. As far as I know, NOBODY is being charged $4.99 for those channels right now anyway, are they? And the only ones not getting those channels are the ones who haven't signed up for at least the next three months - which are still free!

Get six-months warning and still in the middle of the "you don't have to be paying for it to receive it" period and still pi$$ing and moaning? I'm sorry, but my thoughts turn to "get over it - sweat it when it really matters, and by then you've had six months to deal with what you want to do about it". I really can't understand where people are painting DirecTV with horns and a pitchfork over all this - especially when nobody's been charged anything yet!


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

Not the investors meeting (which you should obviously be able to trust). No, it was every call in over the last two years upgrading everything to HD.

We were told there would be no price increases for the new HD channels we waited years for, and we wouldn't lose any channels. 

Did they say prices would never increase ever again? No. They also didn't say gas prices would stay the same, but I don't see the point.

We were paying 10/mo for HD for years. It was over FMV, but they kept string everyone along, don't worry we'll be adding a lot more in the future. So we (all longtime subs) were overpaying for years subsidizing the new EQ costs. They finally launch the channels (over a year late - btw) and bam, we're increasing the prices.

All I ask is just don't lie. You don't see it as a lie, that's fine. You're happy with the new channels, that's fine. It's the screw em and make it 5 bucks so most people won't complain is what they did. You see it as only 5 bucks, who cares if they lied or mislead people, it's only 5 bucks. That's cool. I see it as a new precedent. THEY LIED. Once a company starts lying and the users let it happen, it will only be the beginning.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

To repeat: 
those like me, that had paid the $10 for HD, have "only" lost two channels that we had. HDNet Movies and Universal HD "should" have been grandfathered in. The other "new channels" of the HD extra are not part of the issue [as I see it].
While DirecTV can change cost and what channels are in what packages, it still seems like a "poor choice" to have the two channels removed, verses the cost in "good will" to older customers.
If I want the "new channels", I see no problem with the $5 charge, but how much does it cost [or they lose] to continue the two channels to those that have been paying for them for the last few years?


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I'm sorry, but my thoughts turn to "get over it - sweat it when it really matters, and by then you've had six months to deal with what you want to do about it". I really can't understand where people are painting DirecTV with horns and a pitchfork over all this - especially when nobody's been charged anything yet!


People are being charged, just the ones that have complained have got the ext. They may be throwing in the three months now, but many are already paying. I know one of my friends called on the 15th and added it and he is being charged. I don't know if they will retroactively credit him, but it shows the charge on his statement.

**************************

But it's only 5 bucks, who cares? Well let me ask you this, you hear there are 3 new channels coming but only on premier, you call in and go to premier and are specifically told that you won't be losing any channels and will get the new ones when they come on at no charge.

Then the new channels come on, you lose channels and only get one of the new ones. Now there is a new $50.00/mo. option to get what you were told you would get to begin with for the first price?

That wouldn't bother you? Or is it OK in this case because it's only 5 bucks?

My point is you let them slide on the lies because it's only 5 bucks and the lies and money will only get worse.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

wavemaster said:


> People are being charged, just the ones that have complained have got the ext. They may be throwing in the three months now, but many are already paying. I know one of my friends called on the 15th and added it and he is being charged.


 Then there is a mistake in the billing. At a minimum, everyone got a three months free trial starting on December 15th.


> I don't know if they will retroactively credit him, but it shoes the charge on his statement.


They shoe'd.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

ggergm said:


> Then there is a mistake in the billing. At a minimum, everyone got a three months free trial starting on December 15th.


The free preview ended Dec. 15. If you called on the 15th, you were charged for it. The 3 month kick-back started the following week. I wonder why?......


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ggergm said:


> Then there is a mistake in the billing. At a minimum, *everyone *got a three months free trial starting on December 15th.


This would be for those that did sign up for the HD extra package.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

wavemaster said:


> Not the investors meeting (which you should obviously be able to trust). No, it was every call in over the last two years upgrading everything to HD.
> 
> We were told there would be no price increases for the new HD channels we waited years for, and we wouldn't lose any channels.
> 
> ...


Can you link to the quote that where they promised that we wouldn't lose any channels. I've heard them say that there was no plan to change the $9.99 price of HD access. I've never heard them say that it would include every HD channel available, or that they wouldn't add, or change packages.

I'm not paying an extra $5 bucks, I pay $9.99 a month for HD access.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

wavemaster said:


> The free preview ended Dec. 15. If you called on the 15th, you were charged for it. The 3 month kick-back started the following week. I wonder why?......


Not to defend D* but this is what I got on the 11th:
Hurry, you only have until Saturday to preview this package of stunning HD-only channels, including MHD, HDNet Movies, MGM HD, Smithsonian Channel HD, and Universal HD. After the preview, you can continue to see these channels by adding DIRECTV HD Extra Pack to your programming.

*Get three free months* when you add the all-new DIRECTV HD Extra Pack by February 27. The regular price is just $4.99/mo.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Oh, good. I must have got the extra three free months. Thanks.

This is too hard on my brain.

Although it has been entertaining for the most part.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

I run a company and have had my share of FUBAR's in the last 12 years doing it. 

For those of you that think DirectTV didn't mislead or lie to anyone and is totally in the right, have you wondered why they are back-pedaling and giving out incentives now? If they were in the right there would be NO concessions. I just think of my screwup's or changes over the years with my company and you only give concessions when you screw up, not when the client screws up.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

wavemaster said:


> For those of you that think DirectTV didn't mislead or lie to anyone and is totally in the right, have you wondered why they are back-pedaling and giving out incentives now? If they were in the right there would be NO concessions. I just think of my screwup's or changes over the years with my company and you only give concessions when you screw up, not when the client screws up.


Where's the back-pedaling?

And when has DIRECTV *not* given out incentives or credits? This is nothing new - they've always offered credits to those who call to complain about problems. They've always offered incentives (free months of HBO + Showtime, etc.). Again - nothing new, so I don't see this as any admission of wrong-doing or back-pedaling..


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

I don't know about that, wavemaster. When I ran my stereo store, I always thought the old phrase, _the customer is always right_, was incomplete. I thought the phrase should be _the customer is always right even when they are dead wrong._

I never once won an argument with a customer. If I was right and they were wrong, and I showed them that, then I inevitably lost that customer. I just lost the argument.

I can't see them standing on being right or wrong in this case. It's irrelevant at this point. I think DirecTV recognizes they screwed the pooch in making this change. They could have handled it a lot better. Now they are doing damage control. An extra 3 months free is a small price for them to pay.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ggergm said:


> Now they are doing damage control. An extra 3 months free is a small price for them to pay.


Just to note...

Since the first day the HD Extra Pack showed up as a line item on directv.com as an option to add... it has always had the 3 months free on it.

There has been no change to that aspect of it.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

ggergm said:


> I never once won an argument with a customer. If I was right and they were wrong, and I showed them that, then I inevitably lost that customer. I just lost the argument.


Very wise g.

Same here in the old days.

Now in our business, the customer is about 1/2 right. We make customers millions every year and get a lot of wanna-be's trying to do the same, they come in and say "do it for us, but don't do it your way, do it the way we think you should" My people have no problem telling them that that isn't the way it works. If they knew how to do it, they already would be.

I still see it as a posted date of Dec. 15. Now it's 3 more months. Seems odd to be leaving all that money on the table and screwing the investors (lol) for no good reason.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Where's the back-pedaling?
> 
> And when has DIRECTV *not* given out incentives or credits? This is nothing new - they've always offered credits to those who call to complain about problems. They've always offered incentives (free months of HBO + Showtime, etc.). Again - nothing new, so I don't see this as any admission of wrong-doing or back-pedaling..


good point


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

wavemaster said:


> The free preview ended Dec. 15. If you called on the 15th, you were charged for it. The 3 month kick-back started the following week. I wonder why?......


The 3 month extension was created before the 15th of December.

You do need to call in or add the package via the website. But you don't have to call in to ask for the 3 months free, that was automatic.

If you know of anyone who was actually charged, DIRECTV will fix that. Tho I've not encountered anyone who has been charged yet... Seems like an emotional Urban Legend to stir the pot.

Happy Holidays!
Tom


----------



## Bista-Buster (Apr 15, 2006)

newsposter said:


> i think the goal is digital channels, not HD


They were ALWAYS digital. Now the new goal is HD in MPEG4.:grin:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Bista-Buster said:


> They were ALWAYS digital. Now the new goal is HD in MPEG4.:grin:


For DirecTV... that is probably the goal.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> The 3 month extension was created before the 15th of December.
> 
> You do need to call in or add the package via the website. But you don't have to call in to ask for the 3 months free, that was automatic.
> 
> ...


I'll see him tonight at the weekly poker game and see if we can log into his account to see if it's being charged or not. He said it was and he isn't the type to make things up, of course you have already accused me of lying so it probably won't matter what I say.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

wavemaster said:


> I'll see him tonight at the weekly poker game and see if we can log into his account to see if it's being charged or not. He said it was and he isn't the type to make things up, of course you have already accused me of lying so it probably won't matter what I say.





> Seems like an emotional Urban Legend to stir the pot.


This is a far cry from accusing someone of lying.
Tom is one of the nicest and fair minded mods here.
You really seem to have some "issues" to work through.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> This is a far cry from accusing someone of lying.
> Tom is one of the nicest and fair minded mods here.
> You really seem to have some "issues" to work through.


It was another thread where "lying" was the actual verbiage used, not the RBTL's above.

He probably is, just not to me - lol.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

t'ain't funny, wavemaster


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

ggergm said:


> t'ain't funny, wavemaster


I didn't think so either, but I have pretty thick skin.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Let's try to right this thread now so that we don't have to close it .. what's been said has been said and it's time to move on .. so :backtotop ..


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

It's all ok. I was trying to make a point that accusations of lying are very tricky and should not be taken lightly. 

Upon further consideration, I do apologize to wavemaster for the rude way to make my point. And I apologize for taking way too long in making that apology.

I do wish everyone a very Happy Holiday season and most wonderful new year,
Tom


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

wavemaster said:


> The free preview ended Dec. 15. If you called on the 15th, you were charged for it. The 3 month kick-back started the following week. I wonder why?......


Wow. First, I couldn't believe this thread was still going on. Second, I can't believe members are still making up the same false stories.

If you called in November, you weren't charged for it.
If you called on December 15th, you weren't charged for it.
If you call in January, you won't be charged for it.
If you call in February, you won't be charged for it.

There is no 3 month kick-back. There's 3 free months and it didn't start the following week, it started when the Extra pack was announced several months ago. There are members of this site that signed up for the extra pack back in October with the understanding it would be free until March.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you actually believe any of it or are you so used to spinning tales that the line between truth and fiction gets blurred?


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Where do you get this stuff? Do you actually believe any of it or are you so used to spinning tales that the line between truth and fiction gets blurred?


The notice we got months ago said it was a preview until Dec. 15th.

On Dec. 15th the channels went blank for us. A lot of others as well I assume but they didn't for you, that's cool. I have better things to do than make this crap up and in this case like many others, the truth is the most entertaining and you just can't script it.

I didn't call in until earlier this week, and as I stated elsewhere, I got it for one year, or Jan. 09, comped.

One of our neighbors called in the day it was shut off and was told about the new package and he ordered it. He said there was no mention of 3 more free months, and he saw the line item on his online activity. I don't think he has a new bill yet, and as I said above, I will talk to him tonight about it and see if we can log in and see if it's changed.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I know the official reason why they moved some of the channels. That is not to say that they could not have moved other less critical channels and absorbed the cost of HDnet themselves. In effect they have put the subscribers in a very difficult posistion. Either get the HD package without the eye candy or spend $4.99 and get the real HD channels.



Tom Robertson said:


> You are so wrong as to how they picked the channels. But you are welcome to maintain that wrong opinion if you so choose.
> 
> Yes, the channels that have only existed as pure HD channels are likely to be the best looking as they have no SD content to deal with. And since they aren't covered by an SD contract to help offset the channel costs from a base package, they are put into their own package.
> 
> ...


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> It's all ok. I was trying to make a point that accusations of lying are very tricky and should not be taken lightly.
> 
> Upon further consideration, I do apologize to wavemaster for the rude way to make my point. And I apologize for taking way too long in making that apology.
> 
> ...


Tom, thank you.

The debate (lol) was moving fast and it seemed out of character for you which is why I didn't cry about it.

It has never been my intent to hurt DirectTV and in reality, I have been with them 10 years for a reason. I didn't like being lied to and would hate for it to go unsaid or them not be brought to task on it. All I want is for them to be forthright and honest. When THEY choose to change things at the last hour, that's fine but take care of all the subs you had already misled.

Again thank you for the apology, and if you took any offense to things I said, I'm sorry as well.


----------



## iamqnow (Dec 26, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> paulsown (and others) .. So, if you were given the choice to keep JUST the channels that you had prior to the new HD coming out .. none of the new stuff .. for that same $10 today would you keep it or take the new stuff instead?


Maybe if I didn't pay a total of $600 for the supreme honor of "leasing" HD receivers along with the $5 upcharge you might have a valid point.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

iamqnow said:


> Maybe if I didn't pay a total of $600 for the supreme honor of "leasing" HD receivers along with the $5 upcharge you might have a valid point.


He has a valid point anyway. The lease fees dont change regardless of how they package the channels. If you could get the same thing you had before the new ones came out for the same price, would you?


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Those







charged me 33¢ for the HD Extra Pack! I want someone's job! Today!

_Too much coffee...too much coffee..._

I received an email saying my bill was ready for viewing online. When I looked at it, I noticed a charge for 33¢ for the HD Extra Pack, prorated for the last day of my billing cycle. I called and talked to a very nice CSR, Jennifer, who said it was a mistake. As has been said here, the three free months should have begun on December 15th, not when I called in and ordered the HD Extra Pack back in October. Apologizing profusely, she reversed the 33¢ charge and restarted my 90 day countdown to having to pay for the HD Extra Pack as of today. Cool. I get an extra couple of weeks free.

So wavemaster's buddy may have been charged for HD Extra Pack. He would have had to sign up right away and have the order misentered but it can happen. I'm the 33¢ proof.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Thinking back, I didn't call in for the HD Extra Pack. Back in October, I placed my order for it online. That might well have something to do with the misbilling. At least it might be a necessary condition.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

ggergm, I've reported the error on DIRECTV's TechKnowGuide forums. I'll let you know when I get a reply.

I'm also glad you reported what happened and that it was cleared up cleanly. 

Happy New Year!
Tom


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Thanks, Tom. Glad to be part of the feedback loop.

I will PM you my account number. Feel free to let select people use it if it helps tracking down the bug.


----------



## Seattlellite (Dec 31, 2007)

razorback9926 said:


> But how many of us would have paid $10 for HD service knowing we would only get the original few channels (HDNet, TNT, ESPN) and never anything more? I wouldn't have, I can only watch Law and Order so many times. I signed up for HD because they promised me a ton of new HD channels in the near future.
> 
> I'm not that upset by losing the few channels they just took away because none of them are "biggies" for me. But I think it's an ugly thing by DirecTV to do, they should have grandfathered in an extra year for us longtime HD subscribers.


Well I did for more than a year - I subscribe to family pack mainly for kids PBS sprout and also many international channels which are SD only ($100+). I added the HD a year back (with 2 year commitment) because ESPN and discovery , the 2 channels I cared about were in the HDaccess. Since family doies not have them, now I need to move to a much much higher package to get sprout and any value for HD in the remaining contract period. To say 9.99 did not give any new channels is not true.


----------

