# Directv to Raise Rates Next Year (2009)!!!



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

Its being reported that Directv will raise rates AGAIN!!! Looks like they are they are begging me to cancel now!:nono2:  
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/12/10/directv-puts-away-the-checkbook-plans-to-raise-rates-in-2009/


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

I think most companies raise their rates every year. Prices go up because costs go up.

It's also being discussed over here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=147158


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

Thanks, didn't notice it!


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Smthkd said:


> Looks like they are they are begging me to cancel now!:nono2:


i dare you to cancel.


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> i dare you to cancel.


!rolling


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Oh goody...yet another rumor thread based on Engadget (aka based on a guess) fluff.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Is it that time of year already where folks act surprised that the cost of something is going up again and the talk of cancelling service. Just about everythings costs have to go up sometime so why shouldn't DBS?


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

RAD said:


> Is it that time of year already where folks act surprised that the cost of something is going up again and the talk of cancelling service. Just about everythings costs have to go up sometime so why shouldn't DBS?


Yeah I understand that but come on. Without NFLST or any other extra packages im already paying $150 per month. :eek2:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Smthkd said:


> Yeah I understand that but come on. Without NFLST or any other extra packages im already paying $150 per month. :eek2:


If you have Premier that's $104, DVR service $6.99, HD service $9.99, two extra receivers $10.98 = $131.96, what makes up the extra dollars? So that's the top of the line package with no extra and the hardware you listed. How much would similar service from other providers costs, using list prices not promo prices?

You ought to see my D* bill, but it's because I decided to pay that amount for a bunch of programming. Sounds like you don't like what you're paying now, maybe it's time to cut some of your services if you don't want to pay more.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

It's basic economics....In a recession, D* would be better off not raising rates and focus on decreasing expense to improve profit margin. Consumers are tightening up their budgets and so should D*. A rate increase now just might cause subscribers to cut back in programming.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

richiephx said:


> It's basic economics....In a recession, D* would be better off not raising rates and focus on decreasing expense to improve profit margin. Consumers are tightening up their budgets and so should D*. A rate increase now just might cause subscribers to cut back in programming.


But when you listen to the financial calls with D* they feel that the majority of their customers will keep their service and not drop or cut it since they go after the higher income/ more credit worthy customers. And if it's the usual $3 or $4 per month increase is that really enough to have folks jumping ship, IMHO probably not.


----------



## morbid_fun (Jan 16, 2007)

Smthkd said:


> Its being reported that Directv will raise rates AGAIN!!! Looks like they are they are begging me to cancel now!:nono2:
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/12/10/directv-puts-away-the-checkbook-plans-to-raise-rates-in-2009/


Cable and Dish must be begging for you not to go to them with their annual price increases.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RAD said:


> But when you listen to the financial calls with D* they feel that the majority of their customers will keep their service and not drop or cut it since they go after the higher income/ more credit worthy customers. And if it's the usual $3 or $4 per month increase is that really enough to have folks jumping ship, IMHO probably not.


And even if people do downgarde there programing because of price increases... they are also costing less for directv because they aren't causing them to pay as much for the channels they aren't supplying to those customers... Still a win for directv pocket book...


----------



## myselfalso (Jan 26, 2006)

richiephx said:


> It's basic economics....In a recession, D* would be better off not raising rates and focus on decreasing expense to improve profit margin. Consumers are tightening up their budgets and so should D*. A rate increase now just might cause subscribers to cut back in programming.


That's oversimplification there. You have to figure in the rising costs of R & D that gives us the happy birds in the sky to give us HD programming we have now. Imagine those increases they've experienced.

Also, think about the credit lines they have. They're pretty dry these days, given the credit crisis. So, while they may be constricting their budget, it still may require an increase. We'd have to see their FY2008 quarterlies and see what justifies an increase. (Aside from the fact that costs almost always rise given the rate of inflation which causes a rate increase on our end.)


----------



## roadrunner1782 (Sep 28, 2008)

> But when you listen to the financial calls with D* they feel that the majority of their customers will keep their service and not drop or cut it since they go after the higher income/ more credit worthy customers. And if it's the usual $3 or $4 per month increase is that really enough to have folks jumping ship, IMHO probably not.


Really? I have horrible credit and I still have Directv. Although i did have good credit when i signed up in 2004, so I guess they have a point!


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> And even if people do downgarde there programing because of price increases... they are also costing less for directv because they aren't causing them to pay as much for the channels they aren't supplying to those customers... Still a win for directv pocket book...


Thats an odd way to look at it. Not sure if I agree with that logic or not. If D* pays a set fee for programming then it really dont matter who subs and who dont. I read somewhere that its different for some channels. HBO charges per subscriber but Showtime charges a set charge per year to D*.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

If you look at DirecTV's own projections you can see they actually expect their programming cost to drop slightly next year...any increase at this time is for one reason only to increase profit margins.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

At the same time people will be complaining about rate increases, they'll be raising hell about their favorite HD channel not being carried by DirecTV. 

It is ever thus.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

roadrunner1782 said:


> Really? I have horrible credit and I still have Directv. Although i did have good credit when i signed up in 2004, so I guess they have a point!


It's not like they do constant credit checks on their customers, they only do it when you sign up. As long as you keep paying your bill, DirecTV wants you as a customer.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

This just in: The price of milk is going up too.


----------



## PennHORN (Sep 13, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> I think most companies raise their rates every year. Prices go up because costs go up.
> 
> It's also being discussed over here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=147158


I think most Americans would appreciate a bump in salaries to deal with the inflation. Unfortunately for many, wages have been stagnant. Incredibly stupid move by DirecTV if true. I dumped Comcast because they were going to raise my rate $40 PER MONTH after their takeover 2 years ago in Houston. I chose DirecTV partly for cost reasons and because I always coveted Sunday Ticket. I might have to rethink my commitment to DirecTV if this comes to pass.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> This just in: The price of milk is going up too.


And when it gets spilled, people will still cry over it.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

PennHORN said:


> I think most Americans would appreciate a bump in salaries to deal with the inflation. Unfortunately for many, wages have been stagnant. Incredibly stupid move by DirecTV if true. I dumped Comcast because they were going to raise my rate $40 PER MONTH after their takeover 2 years ago in Houston. I chose DirecTV partly for cost reasons and because I always coveted Sunday Ticket. I might have to rethink my commitment to DirecTV if this comes to pass.


A $40 hike is understandable for leaving but you would consider leaving over $2-5? A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

PennHORN said:


> I dumped Comcast because they were going to raise my rate $40 PER MONTH after their takeover 2 years ago in Houston.


I promise DirecTV won't be raising your rate $40 per month. It'll be closer to $4 per month.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I promise DirecTV won't be raising your rate $40 per month. It'll be closer to $4 per month.


And its not like all the cable companies don't do the EXACT same thing every year too.. In fact, I believe that the cable companies just raised rates last month in some areas..


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

joshjr said:


> Thats an odd way to look at it. Not sure if I agree with that logic or not. If D* pays a set fee for programming then it really dont matter who subs and who dont. I read somewhere that its different for some channels. HBO charges per subscriber but Showtime charges a set charge per year to D*.


Many stations get paid based on how many people subscribes to packages that contain their channels... And it can be a big deal.. just reference the fight HDNet had with Directv last year about this time...


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> This just in: The price of milk is going up too.


Actually the price of milk has dropped significantly over the past few months.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> I think most companies raise their rates every year. Prices go up because costs go up.


We are in a recession and a deflationary economy right now. Costs are not going up.

D*'s product is priced at what the market will allow, no more and no less. It only indirectly has anything to do with their costs (ie if the entire market shifts price based on overall industry costs).


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Oh goody...yet another rumor thread based on Engadget (aka based on a guess) fluff.


Lemme guess, your opinion would be directly opposite if the story was about D* lowering prices.

Must be the vast Tivo underground conspiracy striking again.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

raott said:


> We are in a recession and a deflationary economy right now. Costs are not going up.
> 
> D*'s product is priced at what the market will allow, no more and no less. It only indirectly has anything to do with their costs (ie if the entire market shifts price based on overall industry costs).


Exactly.

I wouldn't be surprised if DirecTV is being forced to raise base prices to preserve overall monthly revenue because many folks are dropping some of the more profitable premiums, like HBO and Showtime, due to the economy. I'm sure DirecTV was getting a healthy chunk of those revenues at no add'l subscriber cost to them.

/steve


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

Smthkd said:


> Its being reported that Directv will raise rates AGAIN!!! Looks like they are they are begging me to cancel now!:nono2:
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/12/10/directv-puts-away-the-checkbook-plans-to-raise-rates-in-2009/


Who cares... we all spend $100 or more a month... whats another $5 to $10 bucks.


----------



## cb7214 (Jan 25, 2007)

morbid_fun said:


> Cable and Dish must be begging for you not to go to them with their annual price increases.


Annual? Hah this year they had 2!! price increases in some areas


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

bwaldron said:


> At the same time people will be complaining about rate increases, they'll be raising hell about their favorite HD channel not being carried by DirecTV.
> 
> It is ever thus.


Personally, I would have no problem paying an extra $2 or $3 a month if DirecTV would truly be the HD Leader they claim to be and give us the available HD channels that they do not carry now. I don;t mind paying a fair price for the services I receive and to me another few bucks a month is still in teh fair range. However, I do mind being lied to and told how great DirecTV is when they are holding out on us.


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

Lee L said:


> Personally, I would have no problem paying an extra $2 or $3 a month if DirecTV would truly be the HD Leader they claim to be and give us the available HD channels that they do not carry now. I don;t mind paying a fair price for the services I receive and to me another few bucks a month is still in teh fair range. However, I do mind being lied to and told how great DirecTV is when they are holding out on us.


And how are they not the HD Leader?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bjamin82 said:


> Who cares... we all spend $100 or more a month... whats another $5 to $10 bucks.


To DirecTV it's over $2 billion a year. Not bad when your overall costs are actually declining. But...overall this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone...except maybe those who continue to think of the corporation as their "friend".


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

All this talk of inflation is bull. Yes it exists but not to the extent at which the proposed price increases are implemented. Also, if they use this for a price increase explaination in 2009 it's just flat out lying. If anything we will see deflation in 2009...case in point:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081211/business_us_economy_usa_forecast.html

The computer industry with true competition doesn't see prices increase on their products every year, in fact they go down yearly if not daily. So, I don't fall for the inflation line when it is thrown out there.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

PennHORN said:


> I might have to rethink my commitment to DirecTV if this comes to pass.


Over a few bucks?



joshjr said:


> A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.


Couldn't have said it better.



raott said:


> We are in a... deflationary economy right now.


We are? ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

Could have fooled me. Looks to me like we've been inflationary since the last time DirecTV raised rates. Two months makes a two month trend, nothing more, nothing less. If DirecTV or any other company, big or small, makes financial decisions based on two months of "trend" they are bound for failure.



luckydob said:


> All this talk of inflation is bull. Yes it exists but not to the extent at which the proposed price increases are implemented. Also, if they use this for a price increase explaination in 2009 it's just flat out lying. If anything we will see deflation in 2009...case in point:
> 
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081211/business_us_economy_usa_forecast.html


Economists are wrong more than half the time. Flip a coin, you'll get better results. :grin:

Case in point, the source cited in your article (the "venerable" lol UCLA Anderson Forecast) said just 9 months ago that we wouldn't even be in a recession with this period of downturn. Good call, economists! !rolling


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

PennHORN said:


> I might have to rethink my commitment to DirecTV if this comes to pass.


Over a few bucks?



joshjr said:


> A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.


Couldn't have said it better.



raott said:


> We are in a... deflationary economy right now.


We are? ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

Could have fooled me. Looks to me like we've been inflationary since the last time DirecTV raised rates. Two months makes a two month trend, nothing more, nothing less. If DirecTV or any other company, big or small, makes financial decisions based on two months of "trend" they are bound for failure.



luckydob said:


> All this talk of inflation is bull. Yes it exists but not to the extent at which the proposed price increases are implemented. Also, if they use this for a price increase explaination in 2009 it's just flat out lying. If anything we will see deflation in 2009...case in point:
> 
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081211/business_us_economy_usa_forecast.html


Economists are wrong more than half the time. Flip a coin, you'll get better results. :grin:

Case in point, the source cited in your article (the "venerable" lol UCLA Anderson Forecast) said just 9 months ago, to the day, that we wouldn't even be in a recession with this period of downturn. Good call, economists! !rolling


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> We are? ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
> 
> Could have fooled me. Looks to me like we've been inflationary since the last time DirecTV raised rates. Two months makes a two month trend, nothing more, nothing less. If DirecTV or any other company, big or small, makes financial decisions based on two months of "trend" they are bound for failure.


There have been three consecutive months of deflation, not two.

You tried to justify the price increase because "costs" are going up. Costs are not going up and D* does not price their products based on costs, it is priced to maximize revenue, if they are not at the sweet spot for their given curve, total revenue drops. This is basic economics. D* is raising prices because they feel the market will support it and it will increase revenue. Contrary to what many seem to want to believe, they are not a non-for-profit charity. They are in business to maximize profits and shareholder value.

Costs are only indirectly a factor because they influence price of the aggregate market.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

With so many people more than happy to pay more every year it's really a surprise that we don't see more and bigger price hikes.

I don't know about anyone else but I don't get a 5-6 percent raise every year so I can't really afford a 5-6 percent increase in costs each year, especially this year.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

raott said:


> There have been three consecutive months of deflation, not two.
> 
> You tried to justify the price increase because "costs" are going up. Costs are not going up and D* does not price their products based on costs, it is priced to maximize revenue, if they are not at the sweet spot for their given curve, total revenue drops. This is basic economics. D* is raising prices because they feel the market will support it and it will increase revenue. Contrary to what many seem to want to believe, they are not a non-for-profit charity. They are in business to maximize profits and shareholder value.
> 
> Costs are only indirectly a factor because they influence price of the aggregate market.


I was more trying to make the point that we're not in a deflationary economy.

Edit: By the way, if you consider a .399% (yes, that's _point_ three _percent_) decrease in prices to be deflationary then I truly feel sorry for your unbridled pessimism. Even the most pessimistic of economists wouldn't call that deflationary.


----------



## tds4182 (Jul 17, 2003)

Smthkd said:


> Yeah I understand that but come on. Without NFLST or any other extra packages im already paying $150 per month. :eek2:


With only 3 receivers (1 HR20 and 2 H20s) it's hard to imagine how you could come up with a bill that high.

What programming package(s) do you have that causes your bill to be that high?


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

With 250 channels there are always some that are coming up for renewal by their suppliers. People are being naive to think those prices are not going to rise. Costs to actors, writers, producers all rise, and those costs get passed along to the end users. That is economic reality. Technology, the backbone of DBS also rises and gets passed along.

Many of the posts I've read are more emotion than reality. While passion for or against something can be good, it makes for terrible discussions of fact.

Those of you complaining the loudest, is it really that bad to have a 3-5 percent increase? Have you really looked at the others? Here in Tucson my son gets Comast and pays more than I do for his DVR and about 20 HD channels. My good friend has Cox and is in almost the same boat. 

Many of you are also forgetting the profit factor. DirecTV is a company with stockholders. Those stockholders expect the company to return a profit on their investment. If they don't see one they pull out their funds. It doesn't take much Internet searching to read about the many companies that have had that happen and are no longer with us. Investor confidence is a major consideration to those running the company.

I'm not a shill for DirecTV and I don't like raises anymore than the next guy, but I'm also realistic about what things in life cost, and that raises are part of economic reality.

Dave


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

My bill is over $100 a month but I'm not upset about programming prices.

What bothers me is the nearly 10% state "satellite privilege tax" I pay every month. About $10 of my monthly bill goes to the state.


----------



## idigg (May 8, 2008)

DirecTV can increase my bill by $5/month if they include the HD Extra Pak into the regular HD service, otherwise I will be like WTFzorz and Uverse will be installed at my home.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

durl said:


> My bill is over $100 a month but I'm not upset about programming prices.
> 
> What bothers me is the nearly 10% state "satellite privilege tax" I pay every month. About $10 of my monthly bill goes to the state.


The state needs receive money to maintain the infrastructure for your dish to receive a signal somewhere. It doesn't just come out of thin air.


----------



## idigg (May 8, 2008)

sunking said:


> The state needs receive money to maintain the infrastructure for your dish to receive a signal somewhere. It doesn't just come out of thin air.


:lol:


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Ken S said:


> If you look at DirecTV's own projections you can see they actually expect their programming cost to drop slightly next year...any increase at this time is for one reason only to increase profit margins.


You can't make that assumption without factoring in net subscriber changes and losses due to non-payment. If they expect to have fewer subscribers or fewer paying subscribers, they may see the total programming costs go down and the programming cost per paying subscriber increase.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

richiephx said:


> It's basic economics....In a recession, D* would be better off not raising rates and focus on decreasing expense to improve profit margin. Consumers are tightening up their budgets and so should D*. A rate increase now just might cause subscribers to cut back in programming.


Basic economics also tells us that some industrys are more recession proof or even anti-cyclical than others. D* provides a lot of entertainment for not much money compared to non-TV substitutes.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

raott said:


> We are in a recession and a deflationary economy right now. Costs are not going up.
> 
> D*'s product is priced at what the market will allow, no more and no less. It only indirectly has anything to do with their costs (ie if the entire market shifts price based on overall industry costs).


...or they just increase subscriber costs every year no matter what to pad their bottom line because "everyone else is doing it" and that makes it a plausible excuse. Sounds like a government run program with annual COLA (cost of living adjustment). Too bad those of us in the private sector don't get that automatic COLA to keep pace. I guess it doesn't help that companies like ESPN are increasing rates and passing it to D* which passes it to us, even though we get more poker and dog shows than sports on ESPN now.... I digress

.. now why are utilities in some states regulated? Don't be surprised that at some point cable/satellite rates don't start to be regulated because of behavior like this.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

gregjones said:


> You can't make that assumption without factoring in net subscriber changes and losses due to non-payment. If they expect to have fewer subscribers or fewer paying subscribers, they may see the total programming costs go down and the programming cost per paying subscriber increase.


In nearly 15 years D* has never bled subscribers in a year. In fact they have only gained less than 1 million a year once. This year they've added over 3 million. For easy math, lets assume $1000/year per subscriber which is (~$80/mo). That comes out to an extra $3B in revenue over last year. D* is using a business model like they are a cable company. They should be decreasing prices in order to convert customers from cable at a greater rate. Take in less profit per customer but make it up by increasing the customer base. But instead they are playing by the cable model where due to town contracts and lack of the ability to grow geographically they need to increase rates to increase money.


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

tds4182 said:


> With only 3 receivers (1 HR20 and 2 H20s) it's hard to imagine how you could come up with a bill that high.
> 
> What programming package(s) do you have that causes your bill to be that high?


My Signature wouldn't allow me to add anymore info as I have used to many characters already. I have 3 DNS feed that I get charged for each, Premier package plus I have 4 HD receivers (1 HR20 and 3 H20's) and I also have the Protection plan. So if you add that up what will it bring you to? Hello!!! Hello!!! anymore Math experts?


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Smthkd said:


> My Signature wouldn't allow me to add anymore info as I have used to many characters already. I have 4 HD receivers (1 HR20 and 3 H20's) plus I also have the Protection plan. So if you add that up what will it bring you to? Hello!!! Hello!!! anymore Math experts?


Premier? $82. 
HD: $10. 
$5 each for the three additional receivers. 
$6 for PP
--------------------
$113, plus tax.

Edit: I see you edited to add DNS feeds, at $2 each that takes us to $119.


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

tcusta00 said:


> Premier? $82.
> HD: $10.
> $5 each for the three additional receivers.
> $6 for PP
> ...


Nope you don't qualify for a math expert you have to repeat 3rd grade!
How about this:

Premier-------------------------------------$104.99
DIRECTV Protection Plan Monthly-------------$5.99
DIRECTV HD EXTRA PACK Monthly------------$4.99
HD Access Monthly--------------------------$9.99
Network: ABC from NYC/LA Monthly----------$2.99
Network: CBS from NYC/LA Monthly----------$2.99 
Network: FOX from NYC/LA Monthly----------$2.99 
Additional Receiver -------------------------$4.99
Additional Receiver -------------------------$4.99
Leased Receiver-----------------------------$4.99
Primary Leased Receiver ---------------------$4.99
Primary Leased Receiver---------------------(Credit -$4.99)
Sales Tax-----------------------------------$0.71
______________________________________________

Total ----- $150.61


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

gregjones said:


> You can't make that assumption without factoring in net subscriber changes and losses due to non-payment. If they expect to have fewer subscribers or fewer paying subscribers, they may see the total programming costs go down and the programming cost per paying subscriber increase.


I didn't make the assumption...DirecTV did.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

myselfalso said:


> That's oversimplification there. You have to figure in the rising costs of R & D that gives us the happy birds in the sky to give us HD programming we have now. Imagine those increases they've experienced.
> 
> Also, think about the credit lines they have. They're pretty dry these days, given the credit crisis. So, while they may be constricting their budget, it still may require an increase. We'd have to see their FY2008 quarterlies and see what justifies an increase. (Aside from the fact that costs almost always rise given the rate of inflation which causes a rate increase on our end.)


I don't believe there is any inflation in this economic downturn...seems more like deflation is a more appropriate term.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

richiephx said:


> I don't believe there is any inflation in this economic downturn...seems more like deflation is a more appropriate term.


See link I posted above.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

bjamin82 said:


> And how are they not the HD Leader?


Umm, because there are HD networks or channels that are out there that other multichannel providers, either Dish or various Cablecos, have made available to their subs that DirecTV has chosen not to make available to its subs.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Smthkd said:


> Nope you don't qualify for a math expert you have to repeat 3rd grade!
> How about this:
> 
> Premier-------------------------------------$104.99
> ...


OK, your the one that said in an earlier post *"Without NFLST or any other extra packages im already paying $150 per month"*. So by going with your signature and that quote that's why people were questioning how you ended up with $150. So you do have extra packages, DNS, protection plan and the extra pack and more receivers then you listed. So don't jump on others because you post BS information and then get up set when someone questions it.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

TANSTAAFL

(There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)

Everyone tends to raise Rates, you can always "Rightsize" your package, or ask if you can get a discount"

Most customers do not care that directv rates went up $3.00 over a 1 year time. Especially when cable went up $5.00 or more


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Smthkd said:


> Nope you don't qualify for a math expert you have to repeat 3rd grade!
> How about this:
> 
> Premier-------------------------------------$104.99
> ...


No, my math skills are fine, thank you. My assumptions of what prices you were paying were incorrect, my apologies. I suggest if you don't get locals that you have that Premier Package price subsidized (since it includes locals). You're paying twice for the same thing.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> No, my math skills are fine, thank you. My assumptions of what prices you were paying were incorrect, my apologies. I suggest if you don't get locals that you have that Premier Package price subsidized (since it includes locals). You're paying twice for the same thing.


it looks like he is doing the grandfather thing


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

RAD said:


> OK, your the one that said in an earlier post "Without NFLST or any other extra packages im already paying $150 per month". So by going with your signature and that quote that's why people were questioning how you ended up with $150. So you do have extra packages, DNS, protection plan and the extra pack and more receivers then you listed. So don't jump on others because you post BS information and then get up set when someone questions it.


You gotta be kidding RAD, I have not given any BS. If you are trying to exclude yourself your doing a poor job! If I have HD receivers you know I have HD access, DNS for my local in my area is a no brainer and yes we do now have Atl locals but I was as clear as any other. I don't have extra's like Playboy, NFLST, MLS, MLB or International channels. I think this is pretty straight forward, Oh! unless your talking about the HD Extra Pack! 



curt8403 said:


> it looks like he is doing the grandfather thing


 Yes, thats correct, Ive had the same package since I started with D* only with the minor changes they made to the account.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Oh goody...yet another rumor thread based on Engadget (aka based on a guess) fluff.


How is this a guess? It's reportedly from the mouth of the senior vice president of financial planning and investor relations at the UBS Global Media and Communications Conference.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

sunking said:


> In nearly 15 years D* has never bled subscribers in a year. In fact they have only gained less than 1 million a year once. This year they've added over 3 million. For easy math, lets assume $1000/year per subscriber which is (~$80/mo). That comes out to an extra $3B in revenue over last year. D* is using a business model like they are a cable company. They should be decreasing prices in order to convert customers from cable at a greater rate. Take in less profit per customer but make it up by increasing the customer base. But instead they are playing by the cable model where due to town contracts and lack of the ability to grow geographically they need to increase rates to increase money.


And what do you think the rate of customers not paying will be this year? What do you think their collections costs will do over the year? I am not arguing that they have to increase their prices. I am arguing that it is fairly easy to say their content cost is down and pretend like that's their only expsense. Running a business isn't as easy as looking at one expense and one set of prices. If it were, much less talented people would be good at it.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> I was more trying to make the point that we're not in a deflationary economy.
> 
> Edit: By the way, if you consider a .399% (yes, that's _point_ three _percent_) decrease in prices to be deflationary then I truly feel sorry for your unbridled pessimism. Even the most pessimistic of economists wouldn't call that deflationary.





tcusta00 said:


> See link I posted above.


First, I'm no mathematician but that looks alot closer to _point_ four _percent_ too me.
Second, I'm also not an economist but but lower prices (albeit only point four percent, or point three if you prefer) looks like deflation to me.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


> First, I'm no mathematician but that looks alot closer to _point_ four _percent_ too me.


Sorry, I didn't write out the "99" in words but I did put it in numbers. Gimme a break and stop nitpicking please.



Sirshagg said:


> Second, *I'm also not an economist* but but lower prices (albeit only point four percent, or point three if you prefer) looks like deflation to me.


Obviously... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation_(economics) 

Key word here: persistent.


----------



## brh056 (Mar 26, 2008)

Since when did we become a society that just starting accepting that "a price increase should be expected every year"? We all may need to have our heads examined. As current consumers we should push for stable prices. 

We are in a recession for good reason...There is only so much of increasing prices that we can handle without increasing wages. That breaking point is upon us and you can all see what that did to the economy here and also to the world. But the lesson here is that Direct and others in the entertainment industry are simply playing the game of what they think they can get away with regardless of cost structure. They could have decreased costs internally but still have the model worked out that says they can raise all of our rates and not feel an impact. This is based on how the industry is running. They can do it as long as they stay competitive with cable and Dish. It will take a backslide in subscriptions across the board to get them to do anything differently. That point though could simply bankrupt them as the cost structure of equipment and support could be too much to bear in a decreasing market.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

brh056 said:


> Since when did we become a society that just starting accepting that "a price increase should be expected every year"?


We didn't.

DirecTV has the right to raise their prices as they see fit. We have the right to pay them or cancel. That's the free market economy. It works.

If you look back, most of the discussion has been around whether or not this price increase would actually increase DirecTV's profit over last year. Since subscriber growth, delinquency, collection costs, marketing costs, content costs and consumer pricing all contribute that bottom line, we would need to know at least that much to make intelligent predictions. That has not stopped many from trying to determine a great deal of conclusion without a great deal of data.

I argue that DirecTV's profit is irrelevant. I, as an individual, make a decision each month as to whether or not it is worth it to pay DirecTV. I could care less if they are making more or less profit as long as they represent a reasonable value to me. When I feel they no longer represent a reasonable value, I will refuse to pay them. Up to that point, I simply hope they are profitable enough to continue providing me with that reasonable value.


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

Looks like I'll be reducing my package yet again then. So far they have LOST money on me and if they raise rates(dropped a premium when they started charging for the extra HD pak). I'm just gonna drop another premium channel(since we hardly watch them anyway). Once again they will end up losing money on me.

Honestly, in this economy, raising the prices isn't the smartest thing to do. I bet a lot of people are struggling to continue keeping what they have, nevermind a price increase.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> This just in: The price of milk is going up too.


??? How does milk factor into this? Milk and D* are vastly different products.

Too bad we aren't able to lock in rates for the next year like new customer are right now. Like I said in another post I expect D* to raise rates and then I in turn expect to drop extra programming.

Gotta pay for the milk, ya know.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

mx6bfast said:


> ??? How does milk factor into this? Milk and D* are vastly different products.
> 
> Too bad we aren't able to lock in rates for the next year like new customer are right now. Like I said in another post I expect D* to raise rates and then I in turn expect to drop extra programming.
> 
> Gotta pay for the milk, ya know.


Screw the milk, I'd rather have my D* even though I'm paying over $200 a month including all my sports packages.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

gregjones said:


> I, as an individual, make a decision each month as to whether or not it is worth it to pay DirecTV. I could care less if they are making more or less profit as long as they represent a reasonable value to me. When I feel they no longer represent a reasonable value, I will refuse to pay them. Up to that point, I simply hope they are profitable enough to continue providing me with that reasonable value.


Absolutely.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I will believe that Directv's operating cost are decreasing when I see where content providers are lowering carriage fees. With shrinking advertising dollars, content providers are more then likely to want more from Directv to maintain there margins.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

gregjones said:


> We didn't.
> 
> DirecTV has the right to raise their prices as they see fit. We have the right to pay them or cancel. That's the free market economy. It works.
> 
> ...


As a share holder I believe a rate increase is in fact the wrong way to grow the business and profits. A better strategy is to focus on customer base growth and trying to deter current customers from package reduction. Let cable continue to raise prices and take their customers. Every current customer that drops a premium negates up to 6 customers with a $2 price increase. Each customer 'stolen' from cable is > $600 a year added to your revenue.

And this doesn't even get into how I think Directv is a terribly wasteful company that would probably see the most benefit from some internal process improvements. You can increase your bottom line from both ends of the wick. Take in more money, cut your wastefulness/improve your processes. Also known as tightening your belt in tough times.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

sunking said:


> As a share holder I believe a rate increase is in fact the wrong way to grow the business and profits.


You may be right...but the perspectives of a customer and an investor are sometimes quite different. (When you're both, it can get interesting at times.)


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

brh056 said:


> Since when did we become a society that just starting accepting that "a price increase should be expected every year"? We all may need to have our heads examined. As current consumers we should push for stable prices.


At the same time we expected our employers to give us a raise every year, even when we do the same work and there is negligible inflation.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

lwilli201 said:


> I will believe that Directv's operating cost are decreasing when I see where content providers are lowering carriage fees. With shrinking advertising dollars, content providers are more then likely to want more from Directv to maintain there margins.


So, if DirecTV states in their financial projections that programming costs are going to be flat or slightly decline you won't believe it?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bwaldron said:


> You may be right...but the perspectives of a customer and an investor are sometimes quite different. (When you're both, it can get interesting at times.)


Many say that if you are going to be a customer you should also be an investor as well...that way when the company raises prices to increase their profits you can balance out the additional fees with gains in stock price and dividends.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

LOL. I love these threads every year, like it's a big surprise. Rates go up every year. Duh! 

And then the threat to leave because rates go up a couple bucks. 

And of course the exact same threads exist on the Dish forums. And the Cable forums. And the AT&T forums. And the FIOS forums.

If anyone thinks they are going to get away from rate increases by going somewhere else is frankly kidding themselves. But you should go where you get the best value.

Now here is a cost savings idea for those paying $150 a month or whatnot:

Dump premier and get Netflix instead. You'll save $30-40 a month and still get all the movies/series you want to watch. Heck, I've been using the savings to pay for Sunday Ticket and still have beer money left over.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

Ken S said:


> Many say that if you are going to be a customer you should also be an investor as well...that way when the company raises prices to increase their profits you can balance out the additional fees with gains in stock price and dividends.


Of course you can ask anyone who bought GM stock so that they could share in the profits of buying a new car how well that has worked out for them


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

sunking said:


> *As a share holder* I believe a rate increase is in fact the wrong way to grow the business and profits. A better strategy is to focus on customer base growth and trying to deter current customers from package reduction. Let cable continue to raise prices and take their customers. Every current customer that drops a premium negates up to 6 customers with a $2 price increase. Each customer 'stolen' from cable is > $600 a year added to your revenue.
> 
> And this doesn't even get into how *I think Directv is a terribly wasteful company* that would probably see the most benefit from some internal process improvements. You can increase your bottom line from both ends of the wick. Take in more money, cut your wastefulness/improve your processes. Also known as tightening your belt in tough times.


Your second statement I've highlighted confuses me. Not because it may or may not be true, but because of your first. :scratchin


----------



## JClore1950 (Aug 28, 2007)

Smthkd said:


> Its being reported that Directv will raise rates AGAIN!!! Looks like they are they are begging me to cancel now!:nono2:
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/12/10/directv-puts-away-the-checkbook-plans-to-raise-rates-in-2009/


Do you think that the cables and Dish don't raise their prices?!?! It seems like the cables raise their rates on a regular basis.


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

Ken S said:


> If you look at DirecTV's own projections you can see they actually expect their programming cost to drop slightly next year...any increase at this time is for one reason only to increase profit margins.


I wonder what they are projecting for programming costs in 2011 when ESPN's outrageous contract with the BCS bowl series kicks in? You know we'll be taking it in the shorts for that one. And I'm sure the new MLB channel that's coming in January will be raising their subscriber costs to Directv after a year or so.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

luckydob said:


> All this talk of inflation is bull. Yes it exists but not to the extent at which the proposed price increases are implemented. Also, if they use this for a price increase explaination in 2009 it's just flat out lying. If anything we will see deflation in 2009...case in point:
> 
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081211/business_us_economy_usa_forecast.html
> 
> The computer industry with true competition doesn't see prices increase on their products every year, in fact they go down yearly if not daily. So, I don't fall for the inflation line when it is thrown out there.


Good luck trying to keep living! Better start watching HULU.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

tcusta00 said:


> Your second statement I've highlighted confuses me. Not because it may or may not be true, but because of your first. :scratchin


Unsure of the confusion part. I don't work for them, nor influence their day to day operation in any way. Can I not be critical of their operations or think they can do a better job? I'm not even saying that pricing increases won't increase revenue. I question whether it is the best way to do so, both short and long term. Oh sure, in reality I know nothing about their business, plans, or actual expenditures. Very true. Then again look what the experts in financial and auto industries have managed.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

sunking said:


> Unsure of the confusion part. I don't work for them, nor influence their day to day operation in any way. Can I not be critical of their operations or think they can do a better job? I'm not even saying that pricing increases won't increase revenue. I question whether it is the best way to do so, both short and long term. Oh sure, in reality I know nothing about their business, plans, or actual expenditures. Very true. Then again look what the experts in financial and auto industries have managed.


Well, exactly... you think they're a "terribly wasteful company" but you're still a shareholder. Oh well, maybe it's just me that's confused, sorry.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

JClore1950 said:


> Do you think that the cables and Dish don't raise their prices?!?! It seems like the cables raise their rates on a regular basis.


The difference with cable is that their subscriptions have either flatlined or gone down slightly. Its a lot harder to increase your revenues when that happens. Directv on the other hand has a very healthy subscriber increase year after year. Something like >15% last year alone. I simply don't think that Directv has to follow the cable model at this point. They may deliver the same type of service but that is where the similarities end.


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

I just have to laugh:lol: at all of us that gripe and moan about a bill going up a few bucks... also have to laugh at the ones that gripe about there bill and are like " I have 12 active DVRS on my system and i only use 3 of them, the rest are in rooms that are used a few times a year"..... 

let me tell y'all something.... when we had Comcast at our old place ( year and a half ago) we subscribed to what was equal to D*'s premier package ( basic, expanded basic, digital channels, movies channels and a crappy 6 HD channels that where offered.... keep in mind Comcast had taken over mom and pops cable co here 6 months before) we also bundled it with phone and internet. our monthly bill was $198.76 every month:eek2: 

Now, we are happy D* customers... we are premier customers, have a 2 DVR's and 2 standard receivers. we get our internet thought D* (via Verizon) and our bill is only $149.50 a month!:eek2: :eek2: 

I don't no about everyone but, i am happy to pay a few dollars more so i can get more service for less money... 

McDonalds is no longer selling the Double cheeseburger for $1.... are the billions and billions of people who have been enjoying it at $1 for years all the sudden gonna cancel or boycott mickey D's cause its now $1.20????


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

firefighter4evr said:


> I just have to laugh:lol: at all of us that gripe and moan about a bill going up a few bucks...


If you don't mind, please set up an auto deposit of a few bucks a month to my bank account. What's a few bucks. :grin:


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

sunking said:


> If you don't mind, please set up an auto deposit of a few bucks a month to my bank account. What's a few bucks. :grin:


a few bucks more a month is nothing... would u rather D* raise is $50 bucks a month?? i would hate to see the forum then...:nono2:


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Paul Secic said:


> Good luck trying to keep living! Better start watching HULU.


Actually Hulu paired with PlayOn is a pretty good option. Add on NetFlix and OTA if you can get it (I can, something like 12 stations) and you're good to go for quite cheap.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

firefighter4evr said:


> i am happy to pay a few dollars more so i can get more service for less money


:scratch:


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

I tell you what, I won't complain about a small rate increase as long as no one will complain when I call D* at the end of my two-year commitment and threaten to leave so they will give me some concession to keep my business, like a new DVR, free Showtime, etc. It's all just business.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Paul Secic said:


> Better start watching HULU.


Hulu and Netflix and You Tube and all of the networks that put their stuff online and iTunes and...

There are other choices available and they're improving at a pretty rapid rate.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rudeney said:


> I tell you what, I won't complain about a small rate increase as long as no one will complain when I call D* at the end of my two-year commitment and threaten to leave so they will give me some concession to keep my business, like a new DVR, free Showtime, etc. It's all just business.


I see nothing wrong with doing that...it's part of the DirecTV business model. Be warned though...in yesterday's presentation they spoke of tightening down discounts for bother new customers and in retention. Your threats may be met with little more than mock sympathy.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I see nothing wrong with doing that...it's part of the DirecTV business model. Be warned though...in yesterday's presentation they spoke of tightening down discounts for bother new customers and in retention. Your threats may be met with little more than mock sympathy.


Oh, it's not a threat, it's more like this:

"Dear DirecTV, I've been with you since 1998 and I've always paid my bill on time and always subscribed to a top-tier package of at least $100/mo. I see that my commitment term is up and I am exploring other entertainment delivery options. You know, I really like DirecTV, but I'd like it better if I had (free Showtime for a year, free HD for a year, or a free HD-DVR to replace my H20, etc.). What do you think you can do for me?"

If they do nothing, then I might very well shop the market. If I get a better deal, I then might take it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rudeney said:


> Oh, it's not a threat, it's more like this:
> 
> "Dear DirecTV, I've been with you since 1998 and I've always paid my bill on time and always subscribed to a top-tier package of at least $100/mo. I see that my commitment term is up and I am exploring other entertainment delivery options. You know, I really like DirecTV, but I'd like it better if I had (free Showtime for a year, free HD for a year, or a free HD-DVR to replace my H20, etc.). What do you think you can do for me?"
> 
> If they do nothing, then I might very well shop the market. If I get a better deal, I then might take it.


*BOLD*.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> McDonalds is no longer selling the Double cheeseburger for $1....


They are in the Detroit area, because we're all poor.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> They are in the Detroit area, because we're all poor.


:lol:


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> They are in the Detroit area, because we're all poor.


Are you sure it dont have something to do with the Lions??:lol:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> Are you sure it dont have something to do with the Lions??:lol:


They'd be selling them for $0.16 if that were the case.


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

My contract is up in August.....if they raise rates yet another $5 (every damn thing is another $5-10), I'll probably cancel and go with the Dish HD only package. I'll miss the ST but it would save me a bundle compared to these pricks.


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

schlar01 said:


> My contract is up in August.....if they raise rates yet another $5 (every damn thing is another $5-10), I'll probably cancel and go with the Dish HD only package. I'll miss the ST but it would save me a bundle compared to these pricks.


!rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:


Ummm, whats so funny about his post?


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

My biggest problem is with them being allowed to increase the price to customers under contract. That seems a little unfair to the consumer to me.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

BattleScott said:


> My biggest problem is with them being allowed to increase the price to customers under contract. That seems a little unfair to the consumer to me.


While I understand your point, and don't necessarily disagree, unfortunately their right to do so is explicitly mentioned in the agreement, section 1(d):


> *Our Programming Changes*. 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. We will endeavor to notify you of any change that is within our reasonable control and its effective date. In most cases, this notice will be about one month in advance. You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, if you do not accept the change (see Section 5). If you cancel your Service, a deactivation fee (described in Sections 2 and 5(b)) or other charges may apply. Credits, if any, to your account will be posted as described in Section 5. If you do not cancel, your continued receipt of our Service will constitute acceptance.


Since the consumer agreed to it at the start, I don't think they can claim it is really unfair.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Kheldar said:


> Since the consumer agreed to it at the start, I don't think they can claim it is really unfair.


Sure they can. We accept all kinds of things in life that are unfair. Doesn't make them any less so.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

BattleScott said:


> My biggest problem is with them being allowed to increase the price to customers under contract. That seems a little unfair to the consumer to me.


That I agree with, IMHO they should allow for an out on a contract if the price of the annual increase causes you bill to go up more then X %.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

For those that want to leave, perhaps you can go to Dish, get an increase as well and get some of your locals shut off out of the blue like in over a dozen markets today.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

In addition to the rumor being started about price increases....

...there is another rumor that DirecTV may "repackage" their channels and/or services somehow in 2009...

Remember where you heard it first.  :lol:


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

bonscott87 said:


> For those that want to leave, perhaps you can go to Dish, get an increase as well and get some of your locals shut off out of the blue like in over a dozen markets today.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> In addition to the rumor being started about price increases....
> 
> ...there is another rumor that DirecTV may "repackage" their channels and/or services somehow in 2009...
> 
> Remember where you heard it first.  :lol:


Better a _re_package than an _un_package, I s'pose.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Kheldar said:


> Better a _re_package than an _un_package, I s'pose.


!rolling

..or better than dis-package....or re-gift.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

If it keeps going up I will just have to find more friends to give receivers too and split my bill with..... (Kidding)


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Grandma is going to be lonely pretty soon because Grandfather is on his deathbed.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

Hopefully it will be a very small increase.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I heard a rumor that more rumors are on the way.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

schlar01 said:


> My contract is up in August.....if they raise rates yet another $5 (every damn thing is another $5-10), I'll probably cancel and go with the Dish HD only package. I'll miss the ST but it would save me a bundle compared to these pricks.


That makes sense :nono: just dump NFLST and stay with D*, why change providers and get way less programing and HD? Shoot you could even drop ST and get the HD extra pack, pay the increase and be dollars ahead of where you are now, and have a better channel selection than with dishnotwork (misspelling intended).


----------



## TigersFanJJ (Feb 17, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> That makes sense :nono: just dump NFLST and stay with D*, why change providers and get way less programing and HD? Shoot you could even drop ST and get the HD extra pack, pay the increase and be dollars ahead of where you are now, and have a better channel selection than with dishnotwork (misspelling intended).


I usually agree with you, dodge boy, but not on this. If you are not going to be able to afford all that you *want*, why not go with the least expensive product that still gives you what you *need*?


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Smthkd said:


> Yeah I understand that but come on. Without NFLST or any other extra packages im already paying $150 per month. :eek2:





Smthkd said:


> How about this:
> 
> Premier-------------------------------------$104.99
> DIRECTV Protection Plan Monthly-------------$5.99
> ...


1st u said u dont have any extra packages....but then u post that u have hd extra pack....sounds like an extra package to me.

plus u have premier which is like an extra package too.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

dcowboy7 said:


> 1st u said u dont have any extra packages....but then u post that u have hd extra pack....sounds like an extra package to me.
> 
> plus u have premier which is like an extra package too.


Good grief. Does it really matter???


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

firefighter4evr said:


> McDonalds is no longer selling the Double cheeseburger for $1.... are the billions and billions of people who have been enjoying it at $1 for years all the sudden gonna cancel or boycott mickey D's cause its now $1.20????


Except McDonald's double cheeseburger doesn't go up every year. It's like every 2-3 years and even then they have a $1 special every now and then. Where is D*'s promotional special? How about during the next 2 weeks get HBO for $9/mo for 1 year? ... or get the extra add on HD pack (the one with HDNet movies, Smithsonian, and MGM) for $3/mo for 1 year. When do we ever see this?


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

dcowboy7 said:


> 1st u said u dont have any extra packages....but then u post that u have hd extra pack....sounds like an extra package to me.
> 
> plus u have premier which is like an extra package too.


Does someone want to go over my bill with a fine toothed comb my bill too? 

Some people can't count, others can, move on.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> They are in the Detroit area, because we're all poor.


Still here in SoCal too but now they call it the"McDouble" and you no longer get a 2nd slice of cheese.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Smthkd said:


> Yeah I understand that but come on. *Without NFLST or any other extra packages im already paying $150 per month.* :eek2:





dcowboy7 said:


> 1st u said u dont have any extra packages....but then u post that u have hd extra pack....sounds like an extra package to me.
> 
> plus u have premier which is like an extra package too.





sunking said:


> Good grief. Does it really matter???





mx6bfast said:


> Does someone want to go over my bill with a fine toothed comb my bill too?
> 
> Some people can't count, others can, move on.


Yes it's necessary, because he misrepresented himself in his original post. If he were truly on a package with no extras he wouldn't be paying $150 a month: Premier which includes every movie channel that exists on DirecTV, HD Extra Pack and Additional (duplicate) locals are all Extras by most people's definition. He's free to subscribe to whatever he darn well pleases but misrepresenting it and complaining about it raised eyebrows. Now the definition of Extra to him is known so we can move along.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> Yes it's necessary, because he misrepresented himself in his original post. If he were truly on a package with no extras (Premier which includes every movie channel that exists on DirecTV, HD Extra Pack and Additional (duplicate) locals are all Extras by most people's definition. He's free to subscribe to whatever he darn well pleases but misrepresenting it and complaining about it raised eyebrows. Now the definition of Extra to him is known so we can move along.


Good. Who thought $5 woulda caused so many people heart ache?


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

dodge boy said:


> That makes sense :nono: just dump NFLST and stay with D*, why change providers and get way less programing and HD? Shoot you could even drop ST and get the HD extra pack, pay the increase and be dollars ahead of where you are now, and have a better channel selection than with dishnotwork (misspelling intended).


The Dish HD package is $40, even if you add $5 for locals, this that and the other thing it would probably be about $55. Right now that is just the price of the D* base package, plus 87 other $5 fees and increases. I'm getting kind of fed up with it.

Its not just $5, its the $5 increase and extra fees for the 20th time. At some point they DO add up. I'm just tired of these companies continually raise the price of everything. Maybe they can try to push the NFL ST all the way up to $400 like they've been trying their hardest to do. Its becoming a joke.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

tcusta00 said:


> Yes it's necessary, because he misrepresented himself in his original post. If he were truly on a package with no extras he wouldn't be paying $150 a month: Premier which includes every movie channel that exists on DirecTV, HD Extra Pack and Additional (duplicate) locals are all Extras by most people's definition. He's free to subscribe to whatever he darn well pleases but misrepresenting it and complaining about it raised eyebrows. Now the definition of Extra to him is known so we can move along.


You must be fun at parties.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

sunking said:


> You must be fun at parties.


Thanks again for your productive contribution to this thread. If you're done with personal attacks can we move along and focus on the topic? :nono2:


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

Ugh, I just figured my bill out without the ST 4-pay and its still around $90 and I don't even have a DVR. I don't know, $90 per month just for TV really worth it.

$58 package
$10 2 extra receivers
$10 HD fee
$6 protection plan
$6 tax

$90. I love the Sunday Ticket but damn, that is just a lot IMO for what I consider pretty basic TV without a DVR. Even without HD its $80 for SD TV! Now consider that a fee increase is likely to push my bill for basic TV watching to around $100. If I can cut that in half with Dish or cable it'll be pretty tough to resist. I hate Charter, as well, but if I combine them with my cable modem, I can get everything for around $120 compared to $150-160 right now.


----------



## FireMedic8039 (Dec 24, 2007)

Here is the break down of the new prices

• New prices start Feb 27, 2008. See Package/Pricing List for details. 
o Existing customers see new prices on their Bill Cycle Day on/after Feb 27.
• Customer notification begins Jan 25, 2008. 
• Courtesy Credits for up to 6 months automatically applied, if eligible. 
o Price Guaranteed Credits for up to 12 months automatically applied, if eligible, for customers with select packages in National Offers only: Q4 2006, Q1-Q4 2007. 

Customer Notification

All customers receive new pricing notification 30 days before their prices change. New pricing begins on customer’s Bill Cycle Day on/after Feb 27, 2008.
• Customers receive new pricing notification by one of the following methods: (1) mailer inserted in January/February bill, (2) mailer sent by regular mail, (3) e-mail, which links customers to an online notification (e-mail sent only if we have valid e-mail on file).

Courtesy Credits

• Complete details about "Courtesy Credits" and "Price Guaranteed Credits" will be available closer to Feb 27, 2008.
• If eligible, credits are applied automatically on customer's Bill Cycle Day after Feb 27.

Courtesy Credits 

• New customers who activated with select base packages Sep 27, 2007 - Feb 26, 2008 may receive "Courtesy Credits" for up to 6 months to offset the cost of new prices. 
o Courtesy Credits are simply a courtesy for customers who recently activated service with us.

Courtesy Credits 

• If a new customer started with a national promotional 12 month offer, we will honor their current base package price for the remainder of their 12 month promotional offer period. (Monthly credit offsets cost of new package price.) 
o Select packages in National Offers only: Q4 2006, Q1-Q4 2007. 


Base Package 

Former Price ~ Price on/after Feb 27, 2008

Basic
$9.99 ~ $9.99 (no change)

Básico
$29.99 ~ $29.99 (no change)

Choice
$49.99 ~ $52.99

Choice Xtra
$54.99 ~ $57.99

Familiar
$42.99 ~ $45.99

Familiar Últra 
$51.99 ~ $54.99

Family
$29.99 ~ $29.99 (no change)

Lo Máximo 
$99.99 ~ $104.99

Plus DVR
$59.99 ~ $62.99

Plus HD/DVR
$69.99 ~ $72.99

Preferred Choice
$29.99 (no locals $29.99) ~ $32.99 (no locals $32.99)

Premier
$99.99 ~ $104.99

Select
$42.99 ~ $45.99



HBO 

Former Price ~ Price on/after Feb 27, 2008
HBO (only $1 more)
$13 ~ $14


Other Services 


Distant Network Services (LA/NY TV Stations) 

Former Price 

Single feed: $1.50
Dual feed: $2.25
4 Network Package: $9 

Price on/after Feb 27, 2008

Single feed: $1.99
Dual feed: $2.99
4 Network Package: $11.99

Outdoor Channel (a la carte)
$1.99 ~ $2.99

Total Choice Mobile (KVH Mobile)

Former Price
Vehicle only:
$54.99
(no locals $49.99)

Vehicle and home:
$5.99
(no locals $4.99) 

Price on/after Feb 27, 2008
Vehicle only:
$57.99
(no locals $52.99)

Vehicle and home:
$5.99
(no locals $4.99) 


Expired Package 

Former Price ~ Price on/after Feb 27, 2008

Total Choice Limited
$39.99 (No locals $36.99) ~ $42.99 (No locals $39.99)

Total Choice
$47.99 (No locals $44.99) ~ $50.99 (No locals $47.99)

Total Choice Plus
$51.99 (No locals $48.99) ~ $54.99 (No locals $51.99)

Expired Package 

Former Price ~ Price on/after Feb 27, 2008


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

FireMedic8039 said:


> Here is the break down of the new prices
> 
> • New prices start Feb 27, 2008. See Package/Pricing List for details.
> o Existing customers see new prices on their Bill Cycle Day on/after Feb 27.
> • Customer notification begins Jan 25, 2008.


This is the announcement from earlier this year for the current rates.


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

tcusta00 said:


> This is the announcement from earlier this year for the current rates.


Guess that means no increase. hurray!:grin:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

sunking said:


> Guess that means no increase. hurray!:grin:


No, just means someone posted the 2008 rate increases and not the 2009.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

FireMedic8039 said:


> Here is the break down of the new prices...


I'm having deja vu. _Again_.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

sunking said:


> Guess that means no increase. hurray!:grin:


Only if your a new customer with the offer to have your rates locked in until 2010.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Just out of curiosity - show of hands.....

How many people who are regular visitors to this board and are complaining about a few dollar price increase are NOT taking advantage of some kind of monthly credit (more than likely because you were encouraged by what you read here to just call in and ask and see what they'll do)?

Every year in late Feb/early March for the last several years there has been a price increase of some kind. Every year there is a thread started around this time (a few months before said price increase takes effect, and even before the increases are revealed) with people griping about "How dare they raise prices" and "If my bill goes up, I'm gone" and "It's not like I get a raise every year to cover the rising costs of all the things I buy". (That last one kills me, by the way - if the costs of all the things you buy keep going up - raise or no raise - how is it a travesty on the largest scale for DirecTV to raise it's prices once a year??? Are people equally as indignant over all the other companies who raise their prices?)

Gas prices skyrocketed this past year and everybody had to take a look at their driving habits and what they spent money on. And you know what happened? People cut way back on a scale that they hadn't before. And that was on something that was much more a necessity than TV! If you made it through that and are still a DirecTV subscriber, a $3-$5 monthly increase is more than covered (several times over) by what you AREN'T spending on gas that's half what it was not so long ago.

If a few dollar a month price increase is your tipping point, then by all means, dump DirecTV because you probably need the money for necessities anyway. If a couple extra bucks a month is your breaking point, then you've probably been living to close to that edge for too long as it is.

For me, I live pretty much paycheck to paycheck. But part of that is my entertianment budget and that includes DirecTV. I've deactivated a couple of extra receivers. I don't subscribe to the HD Extra Pack, and I don't sub to ANY premiums. If what I am paying for now gets to be too much, then I'll cut back further.

It's MY responsibility to live within my means. I don't hold DirecTV responsible in any way for holding the line on MY expenses. It's their decision what to charge for what they provide and they aren't accountable to me in the least when making those decisions. If I want ice cream, I can choose to buy Ben & Jerry's or Hagen Dazs, or I can choose to buy Kemps or Northland. Or to buy none at all. It's not Ben & Jerry's responsibility to make sure they price their product so that *I'm* happy with their prices. It's up to me to make the decision to pay prices that are right for me.


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

JLucPicard said:


> Just out of curiosity - show of hands.....
> 
> How many people who are regular visitors to this board and are complaining about a few dollar price increase are NOT taking advantage of some kind of monthly credit (more than likely because you were encouraged by what you read here to just call in and ask and see what they'll do)?
> 
> ...


Amen!!! well said....... :gott: :bowdown: :goodjob:


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

JLucPicard you hit the nail on the head. Responsibility. The idea we are "*ENTITLED*" to something is what has this country in the shape it's in now.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

JLucPicard said:


> Just out of curiosity - show of hands.....
> 
> How many people who are regular visitors to this board and are complaining about a few dollar price increase are NOT taking advantage of some kind of monthly credit (more than likely because you were encouraged by what you read here to just call in and ask and see what they'll do)?
> 
> ...





Game Fan said:


> JLucPicard you hit the nail on the head. Responsibility. The idea we are "*ENTITLED*" to something is what has this country in the shape it's in now.


+1


----------



## cohbraz (Nov 19, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> Just out of curiosity - show of hands.....
> 
> How many people who are regular visitors to this board and are complaining about a few dollar price increase are NOT taking advantage of some kind of monthly credit (more than likely because you were encouraged by what you read here to just call in and ask and see what they'll do)?
> 
> ...


I nominate this for best post ever.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

cohbraz said:


> I nominate this for best post ever.


I completely agree with you on this, with only one exception. Those who this may be the tipping point for and are locked in a contract with them and can't get out.


----------



## Surveyor40 (Jan 5, 2006)

JLucPicard, Well said. 

D* service or Pay TV is a luxury, not a life necessity. If I were to loose my job, I would evaluate if I could continue to afford D*. I suppose some view all the price increases, food, fuel, services, utilities, taxes, insurance, well everything, as an unnatural frustrating life event. D* raising rates after all the other rate increases, adds to the strain on family finances. Unfortunately as far as I know, no forum exists to gripe about one's utilities, taxes, etc. Just our lonely D* satellite service.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

zimm7778 said:


> I completely agree with you on this, with only one exception. Those who this may be the tipping point for and are locked in a contract with them and can't get out.


Possible, but not likely. Most contracts are running, what, 18 months these days for standard equipment (which is all someone that close to the "edge" should be getting anyway)? And you have price protection for 12 of those 18 months. So, sure, someone could be caught in the 12 months expiring in Feburary when the rate hike is rumored to go into effect, but that only leaves 6 more months til the end of the contract, and he can reduce the package down to bare bones until the contract expires. 5% of $50 for 6 months is $15.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

JLucPicard said:


> Just out of curiosity - show of hands.....
> 
> How many people who are regular visitors to this board and are complaining about a few dollar price increase are NOT taking advantage of some kind of monthly credit


I'm not sure I get your point... although I haven't been complaining, I don't get any kind of monthly credit... are you suggesting we should? The only credits I've gotten have been to offset some kind of hardware cost.



> If a few dollar a month price increase is your tipping point, then by all means, dump DirecTV because you probably need the money for necessities anyway. If a couple extra bucks a month is your breaking point, then you've probably been living to close to that edge for too long as it is.


I don't think that's really fair... just because someone decides TV service is no longer worth the cost doesn't mean they are living beyond their means. I know plenty of people who would think it's crazy to spend $100+ for TV service. It has nothing to do with their ability to pay it, or how well they budget their expenses. Diferent people place different values on different things.

It does seem like the cost of service has risen a little out of proportion to other services, especially considering the other options available today . One could make a very valid argument that it makes much more sense to just put up an antenna, get a Netflix subscription, and make use of your Internet connection, gaming console, or other home entertainment items available. Pay TV service has a lot of competition it didn't' have just 10-15 years ago, yet rates continue to rise. Just because someone decides it's no longer worth the cost doesn't mean they're fiscally irresponsible. In fact, it could mean the exact opposite. Sometimes I wonder why I keep it. :scratch: :whatdidid


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Perfect post JLuc, it really does say it all.

Last year around this time I had to look hard at my entertainment budget and figured I was spending too much for what I wasn't using. Having premier and only watching 1-2 movies a month just didn't seem smart. So I cut Premier, got Netflix and with the cost savings I could keep Sunday Ticket and still have some left over. Personal responsibility...what a concept. 



zimm7778 said:


> I completely agree with you on this, with only one exception. Those who this may be the tipping point for and are locked in a contract with them and can't get out.


Possible. But then DirecTV has several lower package options such as the Family pack which is only $30 a month that someone could downgrade to, to fill out the rest of their contract. If I was hit that hard, that would probably be the first thing I would do along with get rid of some receivers on my account. Family pack with OTA HD could satisfy us if we were hurting that bad. Or just go OTA and Netflix only...always an option.


----------



## bb37 (Dec 27, 2007)

DarinC said:


> It does seem like the cost of service has risen a little out of proportion to other services, especially considering the other options available today.


I'm not going to debate this point. However, if satellite or cable TV carriers raise prices from X to Y, but the reduction in subscribers from A to B still results in greater revenues for the carriers, then the increase to the Y price was a good decision for the company and its stockholders.

Let's not get the idea in our heads that DirecTV is in business to serve customers. DirecTV is in business to serve customers just well enough to generate a profit for the business.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

bb37 said:


> if satellite or cable TV carriers raise prices from X to Y, but the reduction in subscribers from A to B still results in greater revenues for the carriers, then the increase to the Y price was a good decision for the company and its stockholders.


I agree completely. I was commenting on the consumer's perspective, not DirecTV's. Some _may_ stop subscribing or downgrade. If/when a significant number do, I'm sure the industry will respond accordingly.


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

DarinC said:


> I'm not sure I get your point... although I haven't been complaining, I don't get any kind of monthly credit... are you suggesting we should? The only credits I've gotten have been to offset some kind of hardware cost.
> 
> I don't think that's really fair... just because someone decides TV service is no longer worth the cost doesn't mean they are living beyond their means. I know plenty of people who would think it's crazy to spend $100+ for TV service. It has nothing to do with their ability to pay it, or how well they budget their expenses. Diferent people place different values on different things.
> 
> It does seem like the cost of service has risen a little out of proportion to other services, especially considering the other options available today . One could make a very valid argument that it makes much more sense to just put up an antenna, get a Netflix subscription, and make use of your Internet connection, gaming console, or other home entertainment items available. Pay TV service has a lot of competition it didn't' have just 10-15 years ago, yet rates continue to rise. Just because someone decides it's no longer worth the cost doesn't mean they're fiscally irresponsible. In fact, it could mean the exact opposite. Sometimes I wonder why I keep it. :scratch: :whatdidid


This is pretty much where I am. I CAN afford $100 per month for what I consider basic TV. But I don't consider that to be a value and I can't really justify it in my mind. I'm not cheap, I spend on things that I think are truly important, but $100 TV isn't one of them. I could buy a new car, too, but I still drive a 97 because its paid off and I consider car payments to be wasteful.

Regardless, if I can basically get the same TV for $60 elsewhere I'm going to do it. DirecTV is pricing itself out of the market IMO. There aren't THAT many people who feel $100 just for TV is a good deal.

Also, I don't have any credits right now. My contract expires in Aug 2009. I'll probably convince myself to keep it through the NFL season unless they try to charge me $400 for the NFL ST.


----------



## TigersFanJJ (Feb 17, 2006)

schlar01 said:


> This is pretty much where I am. I CAN afford $100 per month for what I consider basic TV. But I don't consider that to be a value and I can't really justify it in my mind. I'm not cheap, I spend on things that I think are truly important, but $100 TV isn't one of them. I could buy a new car, too, but I still drive a 97 because its paid off and I consider car payments to be wasteful.
> 
> Regardless, if I can basically get the same TV for $60 elsewhere I'm going to do it. DirecTV is pricing itself out of the market IMO. There aren't THAT many people who feel $100 just for TV is a good deal.


Absolutely the same way I feel about it. I can afford it. However, I don't feel it is worth it anymore when I am currently paying around $180/month for tv. I dropped Cinemax when Directv raised the rates last time and will probably drop another one, if not all, of my premiums when they raise it again.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

TigersFanJJ said:


> I dropped Cinemax when Directv raised the rates last time and will probably drop another one, if not all, of my premiums when they raise it again.


I've done the same thing over the past several price increases. I had Platinum/Premier for the longest time, but when the price increases started coming so regularly (they didn't used to be an annual thing), I started dropping the premiums one by one. I have HBO and Showtime left. Not sure if I'll drop one, or both this time around (I like to wait until the increase, because it gives me a false sense of making a statement ). Back when HBO had really great series, I would have never considered dropping them. But I can't remember the last time I watched one of their original programs... it's been well over a year. So there's really no sense in keeping either one... neither has anything compelling, and I tend to buy every movie I want to see when it comes out on Blu-ray/DVD. But part of me thinks I need to still keep one premium to use as my statement for the price increase of 2010.


----------



## Crimson (Dec 9, 2006)

I dislike rate increases as much as anyone. But I wonder how many people here expect their employer to give them a raise every year as well? Although this year I bet a lot of people won't get one.. But, my point still stands, we can't expect rates to stay the same forever.

Not that we can't complain! :lol:


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Crimson said:


> Although this year I bet a lot of people won't get one..


I think that's part of the point... considering the economy, a price increase seems particularly questionable this year. It will be interesting to see if their churn and ARPU numbers change significantly next year.


----------



## TigersFanJJ (Feb 17, 2006)

Crimson said:


> I dislike rate increases as much as anyone. But I wonder how many people here expect their employer to give them a raise every year as well? Although this year I bet a lot of people won't get one.. But, my point still stands, we can't expect rates to stay the same forever.
> 
> Not that we can't complain! :lol:


I work for myself so I expect my employer to give me every bit of profit that he makes. :lol:

It's debatable, but many might say people expect a raise because their cost of living goes up each year (I.E. Directv raising rates).


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

TigersFanJJ said:


> many might say people expect a raise because their cost of living goes up each year (I.E. Directv raising rates).


The cost of living is probably the easiest comparison to make. I believe the 2007-2008 increase was 2.8% nationally. Looking at their increase last year, it looks like the very cheapest plans didn't have an increase, while the others ranged from 4-7%. I would guess the bulk of their customers probably saw a 4-5% increase. So the question is: is television service worth an increasing portion of your living expenses?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DarinC said:


> The cost of living is probably the easiest comparison to make. I believe the 2007-2008 increase was 2.8% nationally. Looking at their increase last year, it looks like the very cheapest plans didn't have an increase, while the others ranged from 4-7%. I would guess the bulk of their customers probably saw a 4-5% increase. So the question is: is television service worth an increasing portion of your living expenses?


...unless....of course....one's income grew more than 5% this year....then the percentages mean nothing.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...unless....of course....one's income grew more than 5% this year....then the percentages mean nothing.


Of course they do (beyond the fact that the cost of living and DirecTV rates are national numbers, and your local cost of living numbers can vary from that). Your _individual_ income is irrelevant. Most people's incomes (hopefully) increase more than the cost of living increase. We start out young and inexperienced, and gain more value in the market as we gain experience (at least until we get old and burned out and antiquated... hopefully not too long before retirement). But if the cost of TV service were to consistently increase at a rate higher than the cost of living, it would still become a disproportionate amount of the average consumer's living expenses. DirecTV doesn't live solely off of your subscription... while your expendable income may increase as you age, subscribers older than you are dying, and new ones starting at the beginning of their autonomous lives are coming in to the market. Like all companies, they have to market towards the young, because the old aren't going to be with them forever.

But even if you don't look at it as a whole, the question stands for an individual... is television service worth an increasing portion of your living *expenses*? Just because you got a raise doesn't mean your living expenses went up at the same time. HOPEFULLY you don't get raises just so you can continue paying DirecTV. Hopefully your expendable income increases so you can make investments, or buy a boat, or whatever your goals are.

Obviously, they aren't going to price themselves out of the market. If they start to, they will compensate. And its' probably also fair to say that TV service _is_ worth an increasing portion of many people's expenses... people do tend to spend more time in front of the TV than 15 years ago (though with the Internet, I can't help but wonder if it's retreated back since then). Whether or not that's a good thing is a completely different topic. But regardless, they can't continue increasing rates at a higher rate than the cost of living indefinitely. If they did, there'd be nothing left for food and shelter. :eek2: But it will be interesting to see how long they can continue that trend.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Crimson said:


> I dislike rate increases as much as anyone. But I wonder how many people here expect their employer to give them a raise every year as well? Although this year I bet a lot of people won't get one.. But, my point still stands, we can't expect rates to stay the same forever.
> 
> Not that we can't complain! :lol:


I definitely don't expect them to stay the same forever. I also don't think there should be an increase each and every year, especially a year like this where te economy has taken a severe dump.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DarinC said:


> But regardless, they can't continue increasing rates at a higher rate than the cost of living indefinitely. If they did, there'd be nothing left for food and shelter. :eek2: But it will be interesting to see how long they can continue that trend.


As I stated earlier...another alternative is to "repackage" their products and services...so that you may end up paying less if you choose a package that contains only the channels you wanted (and if there is such a package).

Dish has already played with the "TurboHD" package in this regard...so in 2009...don't be surprised if DirecTV does something similar once we get near or past the February digital conversion date.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> As I stated earlier...another alternative is to "repackage" their products and services...so that you may end up paying less if you choose a package that contains only the channels you wanted.


Perhaps, though that's a separate topic. If you buy a package that has fewer channels, that's a short term solution. If the rates as a whole continue to increase at a pace faster than inflation (not that I believe they would), at some point, you'll run out of channels to remove. Personally, I don't think a la carte would reduce the cost of channels, it would just reduce the number of channels you get for the same cost. But that's an entirely different subject.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Maybe to keep all the folks that are unhappy about a possible rate increase is to reduce the number of channels and keep the price the same? That's what food companies have been doing, notice that your 1/2 gallon of ice cream has been reduced to 1 1/2 quarts but the same price? Frito Lay potato chips used to come in a 16oz bag which has slowly been reduced in size a bag I bought last week was 12oz, same bag today at same price is now 11oz.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

RAD said:


> Frito Lay potato chips used to come in a 16oz bag which has slowly been reduced in size a bag I bought last week was 12oz, same bag today at same price is now 11oz.


So, in a few months, are they going to have to re-label the bag to say "Frito Lay Potato Chip"?


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Possible, but not likely. Most contracts are running, what, 18 months these days for standard equipment (which is all someone that close to the "edge" should be getting anyway)? And you have price protection for 12 of those 18 months. So, sure, someone could be caught in the 12 months expiring in Feburary when the rate hike is rumored to go into effect, but that only leaves 6 more months til the end of the contract, and he can reduce the package down to bare bones until the contract expires. 5% of $50 for 6 months is $15.


I throw in one other caveat too. If those people move during the initial contract. I believe you have to recommit to a certain length of time again. I mean in my case, my family and I have moved 3 times since 2006. We have yet to get out from other a contract. Now I am not in danger of losing service or being on the edge (in fact, I upped my package to Premiere HD this evening and in addition have all 4 professional sports out of market packages) but I can still understand people feeling over a barrel with the contracts and cancellation fees vs the cost of the services a month if some are that close to the edge of financial problems. And it's not JUST Directv, it's cell phones, some internet providers, anyone who may have locked those people into contracts over the past few years and now things have gotten pretty bad.

I understand the complaints about those who come on here, threatening to leave with another price hike, etc. It happens every year. I am just stating I can see where a few might truly be at their breaking point with another one.


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

DirecTV is adding more locals now. Unlike the national broadcasters where one fee covers the entire USA, locals are negotiated on a city by city basis. Every local added means more payments that they're making. They can't eat all those costs.


----------



## fkostyun (Feb 15, 2007)

With this increase - I'm going to be super tempted to switch to the dish HD. I've got the plus HD now + and extra reciever - the $33 dish hd package covers the channels I watch... this may be the last thing that kicks me to dish.


----------



## joeshan99 (May 16, 2008)

Of course a increase is going to happen. Who do you think pays for all the credits people want:lol: :lol:


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

fkostyun said:


> With this increase - I'm going to be super tempted to switch to the dish HD. I've got the plus HD now + and extra reciever - the $33 dish hd package covers the channels I watch... this may be the last thing that kicks me to dish.


You do know Dish will be increase their rates around the same time as well, right?


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

fkostyun said:


> With this increase - I'm going to be super tempted to switch to the dish HD. I've got the plus HD now + and extra reciever - the $33 dish hd package covers the channels I watch... this may be the last thing that kicks me to dish.


Interesting. Good luck with the fixed-price structure over there.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1034931&postcount=9


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

Just for all of ya *****ing about D*'s prices i thought i would pass along one of the 50 emails i got from E* about there such great cheap packages......

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

Get 100 Channels. *No Cost* HBO,Starz, Showtime, DVR

Are you sick of paying to much for cable? Order Dish Network HD, plans starting at just $19.99 per month. Free activation, only $1 to get started!

Click here for a No cost quote from a Dish Network Specialist

For more information follow this link

Order through this exclusive Opportunities and receive:

1. Free Service for 3 Months
2. Free Upgrade to HD DVR (*better than Tivo*)
3. Free Four Room Installation 
4. Pay only $1 to Get Started

Also, for a very Iimited time, receive a free welcome gift of your choice:

1. Free Home Theater System 
2. Free Apple IPOD shuffle
3. Free Digital Video Camera


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

That looks like a great deal. I don't see what is so funny about it?


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

mx6bfast said:


> That looks like a great deal. I don't see what is so funny about it?


The funny part is that to the average consumer that looks like and excellent deal. there gonna expect to be getting a bunch of free stuff and only be paying about $30 bucks a month......

there gonna have sticker shock when the first bill come and its $100 or more....


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

firefighter4evr said:


> The funny part is that to the average consumer that looks like and excellent deal. there gonna expect to be getting a bunch of free stuff and only be paying about $30 bucks a month......
> 
> there gonna have sticker shock when the first bill come and its $100 or more....


Besides the fact that most people still watch programs on SD channels. For just a few bucks more you have the DirecTV package with more HD channels and 200+ SD channels to boot. But hey, if you get every channel you need in the Dish package then go for it. Rock on. But for most people it's worthless and just a marketing scam.


----------



## studdad (Aug 11, 2008)

NONE of the new HD they promised, but talks of a rate increase......seems reasonable to me. Lemme Lemme downgrade.........or.........Lemme Lemme Upgrade,,,,to another service. D* is getting slimier every day that goes by.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

studdad said:


> NONE of the new HD they promised, but talks of a rate increase......seems reasonable to me. Lemme Lemme downgrade.........or.........Lemme Lemme Upgrade,,,,to another service. D* is getting slimier every day that goes by.


And exactly what new HD did the *promise* *you* that wasn't provided?

This is the 2nd thread now that you've posted your "slimy" rant.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> And exactly what new HD did the *promise* *you* that wasn't provided?
> 
> This is the 2nd thread now that you've posted your "slimy" rant.


Didn't you get the Promise Ring in the mail like the rest of us? :sure:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

tcusta00 said:


> Didn't you get the Promise Ring in the mail like the rest of us? :sure:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I promise not to tell.


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

firefighter4evr said:


> The funny part is that to the average consumer that looks like and excellent deal. there gonna expect to be getting a bunch of free stuff and only be paying about $30 bucks a month......
> 
> there gonna have sticker shock when the first bill come and its $100 or more....


Maybe you missed the "packages starting at $29.99" DirecTV commercial.

Then you get your $95 bill. Both companies advertise the same type of "specials". I think D* has some pretty extreme sticker shock, as well.


----------



## TigersFanJJ (Feb 17, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> And exactly what new HD did the *promise* *you* that wasn't provided?
> 
> This is the 2nd thread now that you've posted your "slimy" rant.


I haven't personally seen the press release (or whatever it was) but have seen numerous threads referencing it where Directv said a year or more ago that they were going to release the rest of the HBOs as well as other HD channels that have yet to be added. Perhaps that is what he is talking about.


----------



## Tybee Bill (Oct 21, 2008)

FIOS is digging up the yards in my neighborhood. I have been a D* cusomer because I travel between three locations (2 in GA and 1 in FL). One is an RV campground. I have a dish at both locations and have a small 2LNB for the RV.
If I every stayed in one place and they had a good cable package, I would be tempted, BUT, I have purchased many D* boxes over the years and have many of them activated. (That was a runon) My monthly bill is $175.

I just dropped Premier and am saving about $50 per month. 
I have 9 boxes active. That's next.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

I saw a DirecTV ad over the weekend and they had the phrase "Lock in your rate until 2010" on the screen. I do not remember seeing that before this weekend.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

A rate increase may well be a pre-cursor to the sale of the company. JMHO.

Jeff


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lee L said:


> I saw a DirecTV ad over the weekend and they had the phrase "Lock in your rate until 2010" on the screen. I do not remember seeing that before this weekend.


They've been advertising that for a few weeks now.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Piratefan98 said:


> A rate increase may well be a pre-cursor to the sale of the company. JMHO.
> 
> Jeff


:scratchin Huh?


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> :scratchin Huh?


Well, there are rumors of a potential sale (i.e. AT&T). And I'm sure AT&T or any potential suitor wouldn't want to be the bad guy and raise rates upon takeover .... so the current ownership raising rates would probably be advisable.

I know a rate increase was probably going to happen with or without a sale of the company. But still, if I were buying DirecTV and thought rates needed to be elevated, I'd have current ownership do it.

Jeff


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Piratefan98 said:


> But still, if I were buying DirecTV and thought rates needed to be elevated, I'd have current ownership do it.


!rolling Good one!


----------



## scott72 (Feb 17, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> !rolling Good one!


Not sure what's so funny about what he's saying. If there's more revenue coming in from a previous rate hike, then clearly the bottom line is going to look more attractive to potential buyers. Unless your laughing about the new owner not raising rates, which we all know is likely.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

Lee L said:


> I saw a DirecTV ad over the weekend and they had the phrase "Lock in your rate until 2010" on the screen. I do not remember seeing that before this weekend.


I'm pretty sure that is for new customers only. I have not seen anything about current customers being able to do so.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

scott72 said:


> Not sure what's so funny about what he's saying. If there's more revenue coming in from a previous rate hike, then clearly the bottom line is going to look more attractive to potential buyers.


That's what I meant.

Also, it just seems like a new owner would want to avoid the bad publicity of walking in the door and instantly raising rates. If the nasty old owners already raised them, from an appearance standpoint, it would be a better situation for the new owner.

Jeff


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

scott72 said:


> Not sure what's so funny about what he's saying. If there's more revenue coming in from a previous rate hike, then clearly the bottom line is going to look more attractive to potential buyers. Unless your laughing about the new owner not raising rates, which we all know is likely.





Piratefan98 said:


> That's what I meant.
> 
> Also, it just seems like a new owner would want to avoid the bad publicity of walking in the door and instantly raising rates. If the nasty old owners already raised them, from an appearance standpoint, it would be a better situation for the new owner.
> 
> Jeff


What's funny to me is the notion that a (heretofore unnamed and unknown) suitor would be able to control the goings-on at a publicly traded company. It's manipulative and wholly illegal.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> It's manipulative and wholly illegal.


Well, there you have it.

I'm sure nothing like that ever goes on behind the closed doors of corporate boardrooms.



Jeff


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> What's funny to me is the notion that a (heretofore unnamed and unknown) suitor would be able to control the goings-on at a publicly traded company. It's manipulative and wholly illegal.


And it's illegal because ......... ?


----------



## studdad (Aug 11, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> And exactly what new HD did the *promise* *you* that wasn't provided?
> 
> This is the 2nd thread now that you've posted your "slimy" rant.


And, had you read the other thread you would know. And, glad you can count, that's an important skill. Look, if you don't feel what has gone on is "slimy" then you are entitled to your opinion, but I am entitled to mine as well.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Bushwacr said:


> And it's illegal because ......... ?


... it's contrary to the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Piratefan98 said:


> That's what I meant.
> 
> Also, it just seems like a new owner would want to avoid the bad publicity of walking in the door and instantly raising rates. If the nasty old owners already raised them, from an appearance standpoint, it would be a better situation for the new owner.
> 
> Jeff


LOL. Please. Rates go up every year. So you're saying DirecTV or Dish is going to be sold every year? :lol:

How about cable, they going to be sold every year (or maybe every 6 months around here).

Funny stuff.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

schlar01 said:


> Maybe you missed the "packages starting at $29.99" DirecTV commercial.
> 
> Then you get your $95 bill. Both companies advertise the same type of "specials". I think D* has some pretty extreme sticker shock, as well.




So you're saying that my sister who gets the Family pack for $29.99 with 1 receiver and her bill is... $29.99 plus tax is not correct?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> LOL. Please. Rates go up every year. So you're saying DirecTV or Dish is going to be sold every year? :lol:
> 
> How about cable, they going to be sold every year (or maybe every 6 months around here).
> 
> Funny stuff.


Well, with DirecTV's track record they've been for sale just about every year...price increase or not.


----------



## Tybee Bill (Oct 21, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> ... it's contrary to the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


D* is in an unregulated industry and they can raise rates at any time for any reason.

Disclosing info about a pending rate change to a potential suitor and not to shareholders or potential shareholders would be a violation of Securities laws.

If we know about a pending rate increase, then the public knows: no violation. no fraud.

Telling a potential buyer that they have the ability to raise rates or "we will raise rates for you is you agree to buy us" is not fraud. It's business.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> ... it's contrary to the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


I'm well aware of the Securities Acts since I've dealt with them; just not how raising rates is a violation which was the question.

And I'll use my hard copies instead of Wikipedia links. SEC.gov is a better source.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

bonscott87 said:


> LOL. Please. Rates go up every year. So you're saying DirecTV or Dish is going to be sold every year?


Was it that difficult to follow?

Sheeeesh :lol:

Jeff


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Tybee Bill said:


> D* is in an unregulated industry and they can raise rates at any time for any reason.
> 
> Disclosing info about a pending rate change to a potential suitor and not to shareholders or potential shareholders would be a violation of Securities laws.
> 
> ...


I disagree. It's manipulative and illegal. 


Bushwacr said:


> I'm well aware of the Securities Acts since I've dealt with them; just not how raising rates is a violation which was the question.
> 
> And I'll use my hard copies instead of Wikipedia links. SEC.gov is a better source.


Then you ought to know that manipulation of corporate policies (rates) by a potential purchaser in order to effect the sale of a company is fraudulent and deceptive. Your hard copies and Wikipedia will both tell you that. I don't know why you'd need a hard copy of it in the first place, but more power to ya.


----------



## scott72 (Feb 17, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> What's funny to me is the notion that a (heretofore unnamed and unknown) suitor would be able to control the goings-on at a publicly traded company. It's manipulative and wholly illegal.


I don't think he's suggesting that the new buyer is calling the shots. I think he's suggesting that D* would raise rates to make the bottom line more attractive to any potential buyer. The same type of activity happens in a lot of business such as professional sports franchises. Many times when a professional team is for sale, you'll see a massive salary dump in order to make the bottom line look for impressive to any potential buyer. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what we was getting at.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

scott72 said:


> I don't think he's suggesting that the new buyer is calling the shots. I think he's suggesting that D* would raise rates to make the bottom line more attractive to any potential buyer. The same type of activity happens in a lot of business such as professional sports franchises. Many times when a professional team is for sale, you'll see a massive salary dump in order to make the bottom line look for impressive to any potential buyer. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what we was getting at.


Could be... 
_
But still, if I were buying DirecTV and thought rates needed to be elevated, *I'd have current ownership do it. *_

:shrug:


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

tcusta00 said:


> Could be...
> _
> But still, if I were buying DirecTV and thought rates needed to be elevated, *I'd have current ownership do it. *_
> 
> :shrug:


I don't see the point.

The customers don't care _where_ the price increase comes from or who is to blame. They just care _that_ it increased, not _who_ increased it.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Kheldar said:


> The customers don't care _where_ the price increase comes from or who is to blame. They just care _that_ it increased, not _who_ increased it.


Agreed. 95% of DirecTV's customers (and that's probably low) couldn't even tell you that Liberty owns DirecTV.


----------



## henw (Nov 11, 2007)

In these economic times I can live with a price hike provided;

Corporate perks are trimmed.
CEO salaries are consistent with European models.
No expensive retreats.
No dividends to investors.
Staffing is lean and efficient.

You get the picture. No DTV oinkers!!


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

henw said:


> In these economic times I can live with a price hike provided;
> 
> Corporate perks are trimmed.
> CEO salaries are consistent with European models.
> ...


Again, this line of thinking kills me. You think the service is a good value or you don't. If you have a philosophical difference with the company, don't pay them. But the idea of using specific behaviors to gauge things is a huge time-waster, to me.

You have one choice as a customer: continue to pay them or stop. Anything else is fairly irrelevant. I don't care how they spend money for compensation/rewards/bonuses/staffing. The only thing I care about is whether I think the price they charge me is reasonable.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Kheldar said:


> I don't see the point.
> 
> The customers don't care _where_ the price increase comes from or who is to blame. They just care _that_ it increased, not _who_ increased it.


I agree too, but the post I was responding to was addressing the alleged _reason_ for the rumored rate hike...

Anyway, you're right, :backtotop


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

henw said:


> In these economic times I can live with a price hike provided;
> 
> Corporate perks are trimmed.
> CEO salaries are consistent with European models.
> ...


I'm guessing you don't go to the theatres to watch movies.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Agreed. 95% of DirecTV's customers (and that's probably low) couldn't even tell you that Liberty owns DirecTV.


With your new avatar, you should change your name to JereMii W...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> With your new avatar, you should change your name to JereMii W...


That would actually be JereAvatar W. :lol:


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Sirshagg said:


> I'm guessing you don't go to the theatres to watch movies.


nope....not since i got blu-ray.

bye-bye:

$10.50 ticket
$5 popcorn
$4 soda
guy/girl who wont shutup on cellphone
kid crying
sticky floor on my sneakers
endless trailers/commercials before movie starts
getting up for people getting snacks during movie
annoying people looking for good seats after movie starts
movie picture quality cant compare to my blu
its cold out


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

:up:


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> nope....not since i got blu-ray.
> 
> bye-bye:
> 
> ...


No more going to the movies with Barbara and when she goes out to have a butt people stareing at me sitting alone like i am Peewee Hermon.:eek2:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dcowboy7 said:


> nope....not since i got blu-ray.
> 
> bye-bye:
> 
> ...


Amen brother.

Blu Ray or HD PPV here only....used to go to commercial theaters twice per month on average, now it's more like 4 times per year.


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Amen brother.
> 
> Blu Ray or HD PPV here only....used to go to commercial theaters twice per month on average, now it's more like 4 times per year.


haha, once every four years here


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

firefighter4evr said:


> haha, once every four years here


No wonder the line for popcorn is so much shorter these days...


----------



## patriotsfan#12 (Jan 19, 2009)

Piratefan98 said:


> Well, there are rumors of a potential sale (i.e. AT&T). And I'm sure AT&T or any potential suitor wouldn't want to be the bad guy and raise rates upon takeover .... so the current ownership raising rates would probably be advisable.
> 
> I know a rate increase was probably going to happen with or without a sale of the company. But still, if I were buying DirecTV and thought rates needed to be elevated, I'd have current ownership do it.
> 
> Jeff


directv is not being bought out by at&t or anyone. i work for directv and they are now exclusive partners with bundling services.


----------



## idigg (May 8, 2008)

So I have DirecTV and I also have AT&T DSL and Home phone, could I somehow get that bundled into my AT&T bill?


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

idigg said:


> So I have DirecTV and I also have AT&T DSL and Home phone, could I somehow get that bundled into my AT&T bill?


I don't know how the new relationship will work, but when DirecTV was partnered with BellSouth, the "bundling" resulted in a credit on the DirecTV bill and was available for new and existing DirecTV subscribers. I still get my monthly credit under the old BellSouth plan.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> nope....not since i got blu-ray.
> 
> bye-bye:
> 
> ...


I'm with you man. The last time me and my wife went to the movies it was horrible. She wanted to see the Strangers real bad and didn't want to wait. Anyway there was people talking and texting. The worse part was the idiot parents that took their 2 kids to this movie. The kids had to be 4 and 5. I think we're done with going to the movies. That just makes us enjoy our Big TV and surround sound even more.


----------



## Glen_D (Oct 21, 2006)

idigg said:


> So I have DirecTV and I also have AT&T DSL and Home phone, could I somehow get that bundled into my AT&T bill?


When AT&T took over in former Bellsouth territory, they continued to honor the bundled discounts that Bellsouth offered.

In other areas, like mine, where Dish Network & Southwestern Bell (later to become SBC and then AT&T) formed a partnership, bundled discounts were only made available to *NEW* Dish Network customers who subscribed to a certain level of services from Southwestern Bell/SBC/AT&T and Dish Network. Existing Dish customers who wanted to take advantage of the bundled discounts would have to cancel their Dish account and wait at least six months to sign up through Southwestern Bell/SBC/AT&T. According to the FAQ on AT&T's website, they do not offer bundled discounts to existing Dish Network customers.

It remains to be seen if AT&T's partnership with DirecTV differs from that of Dish Network.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

patriotsfan#12 said:


> directv is not being bought out by at&t or anyone. i work for directv


I'm not saying you're wrong, but you'd be the last to know if DirecTV were being bought out. This board would know first, trust me.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong, but you'd be the last to know if DirecTV were being bought out. This board would know first, trust me.


That's typically the way things work.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong, but you'd be the last to know if DirecTV were being bought out. This board would know first, trust me.


:lol:

funny, and true


----------



## Tron (Mar 29, 2003)

I know someone mentioned it before, but imagine a TV ad from Directv that went like this : (almost like some politcal ad with a 'serious voice' voiceover)
"We know these are tough economic times...and while other providers [make obvious reference to Dish and/or cable] decided to raise prices and take more of your hard-earned money in these difficult times, we at Directv have initiated a price-freeze good until March 2010!"
"In fact, if you are a current Dishnetwork customer and your rates have been raised, just send us a copy of the bill with the raised rates and we will glady give you [insert TBD credits here] per month for the next 12 months!"

Anyway, you get the idea...I can't imagine how many customers that would take away from Dish, but I would think it would be a great PR stunt/blitz/etc...


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Again, at the detriment of shareholder value, which is where everybody's focus is in business. You can't spend benevolence and you can't dole it out as a dividend.

Nice thought, just not too realistic, me thinks.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tron said:


> Anyway, you get the idea...I can't imagine how many customers that would take away from Dish, but I would think it would be a great PR stunt/blitz/etc...


That's a good idea. Unfortunately, there's not a chance in hell of it happening.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> That's a good idea. Unfortunately, there's not a chance in hell of it happening.


...but then, I've seen alot of ice forming and freezing over in extremely hot places this past year...so never say never...


----------



## satguy22 (Oct 1, 2006)

prices going up? And they cut installers money by 50%! Gave us a small raise last year took it and some this year. WOW


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

raott said:


> We are in a recession and a deflationary economy right now. Costs are not going up.
> 
> D*'s product is priced at what the market will allow, no more and no less. It only indirectly has anything to do with their costs (ie if the entire market shifts price based on overall industry costs).


You're talking about goods. But costs do go up for cable, D*, and E* because of contractual agreements with programmers that have escalators in them each year. Meaning each year it costs them MORE to provide that same programming to customers as it's built into their contracts.

So you're comparison is not accurate as it relates to this industry. As an example, D* owes the NFL more in 2009 then in 2008 due to the contractual agreement in place, recession or not.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> You're talking about goods. But costs do go up for cable, D*, and E* because of contractual agreements with programmers that have escalators in them each year. Meaning each year it costs them MORE to provide that same programming to customers as it's built into their contracts.
> 
> So you're comparison is not accurate as it relates to this industry. As an example, D* owes the NFL more in 2009 then in 2008 due to the contractual agreement in place, recession or not.


+ 1 on what Satelliteracer said. you should be glad that Directv is on your side working hard to keep costs down and not going for the gold (so to speak)


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

curt8403 said:


> you should be glad


There is nothing I hate more than seeing this phrase in a thread about rate increases.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

curt8403 said:


> + 1 on what Satelliteracer said. you should be glad that Directv is on your side working hard to keep costs down and not going for the gold (so to speak)


Is D* doing something different that no other company in the world is doing?


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

The way i feel is Directv can do whatever they want,right now i am paying 82 bucks a month. I have no commitment,an antenna on the roof,Netflix.,if i leave it will cost me about 15 bucks a month to watch TV.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Satelliteracer said:


> You're talking about goods. But costs do go up for cable, D*, and E* because of contractual agreements with programmers that have escalators in them each year. Meaning each year it costs them MORE to provide that same programming to customers as it's built into their contracts.
> 
> So you're comparison is not accurate as it relates to this industry. As an example, D* owes the NFL more in 2009 then in 2008 due to the contractual agreement in place, recession or not.


No, I'm not just talking about goods. The economy has impacted the service industry as hard as goods, if not harder. If D* is foolish enough to sign multi-year contracts with escalators every year regardless of the economic conditions, that is their problem.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

curt8403 said:


> + 1 on what Satelliteracer said. you should be glad that Directv is on your side working hard to keep costs down and not going for the gold (so to speak)


D* is not "on my side", they are a large billion dollar plus corporation in existance to maximize shareholder value. I do not fault them for that, but I also do not have any illusions, like some on this site do, that they are anything but that.

So in essence, they are "going for the gold" so to speak, as their duty is to maximize shareholder value.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

mx6bfast said:


> Is D* doing something different that no other company in the world is doing?


hmm well, other than working to keep rates down. (Example KJZZ asked for a lot more to be carried this time around than normal, so they said no, and are still negotiating) not much.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

curt8403 said:


> hmm well, other than working to keep rates down. (Example KJZZ asked for a lot more to be carried this time around than normal, so they said no, and are still negotiating) not much.


My point was that they aren't the only company doing it. So should we be giving out praises to every single company? Minus the oil/gas companies of course.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

raott said:


> No, I'm not just talking about goods. The economy has impacted the service industry as hard as goods, if not harder. If D* is foolish enough to sign multi-year contracts with escalators every year regardless of the economic conditions, that is their problem.


I don't think you can say D* is foolish for this. How would they know when they signed up for ST the economy was going to do this? 2 - 3 years ago you couldn't have predicted this.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

mx6bfast said:


> I don't think you can say D* is foolish for this. How would they know when they signed up for ST the economy was going to do this? 2 - 3 years ago you couldn't have predicted this.


I've been knowing it for years... but that's beside the point! 

Hopefully the increase won't be too much... if so, I'll have to deal with it then.

I do miss the good old days when there wasn't a price increase every year, but I kind of expect it every year now!

~Alan


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

raott said:


> No, I'm not just talking about goods. The economy has impacted the service industry as hard as goods, if not harder. If D* is foolish enough to sign multi-year contracts with escalators every year regardless of the economic conditions, that is their problem.


Well, in order to get programming locked in to keep rates down, that's what you have to do. If you go short sighted and only do one year contracts, you open yourself up to all kinds of things (programming disputes each year, instability, etc).

That "problem" is shared by every MSO which is probably why you'll see price increases of some kind by all of them if I were to guess. Time will tell.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

raott said:


> No, I'm not just talking about goods. The economy has impacted the service industry as hard as goods, if not harder. If D* is foolish enough to sign multi-year contracts with escalators every year regardless of the economic conditions, that is their problem.


I don't think that Directv is the only provider that has escalators every year in there contract. I would be willing to bet that every cable, E* and D* does.


----------



## Tron (Mar 29, 2003)

I just have to say I can't stand when people say "Well, costs go up--deal with it!".
That's great if you are getting a guaranteed 5-10% pay-raise every year. I know people who have been in a pay-freeze since 2002! Yes, everything is going up in price...(5% increase with D*) some food items have gone up 50%! Energy prices were up over 100%, electric rates up 50% in the past 5 years (at least in New England) etc... Ok, that's all good, IF a majority of the people working are getting raises to match the cost of living... Well, the answer is: They aren't! This has the makings of a financial and economic mess and disaster! Oh wait... it's already here! So everyone, please, the system is not broken, corporate america knows whats best, and just continue to take whatever price increases are dished out with a shoulder shrug and be on your merry way!


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

DirecTV really should try to get a piece of the "bailout" pie while
it is still steaming hot....i mean Larry Flynt tried...so go for it DirecTV..
before the Czar of the "taxpayer's" money is put into place


----------



## BenJF3 (Sep 12, 2008)

Plus, I'm sick of everyone citing "Programming Costs"! There should be no such things as Programming Costs, it's absurd! Content providers are totally and completely dependent on the carrier (be it D*, E*, FiOS, Cable, etc) for distribution of its programming. They should be providing it to them for FREE as was the intended business model where the advertising paid for distribution. I mean, seriously, it's gotten so out of hand that even Over The Air FREE broadcast stations are demanding cash for carriage. The carriers never should have allowed this to become what it has. Deregulation devastated the industry and caused this mess we have today where one company owns 20 stations and allows for program tying. It virtually assures a well regulated, true Ala Carte system will never be put in place. Rates will continue to rise at, on average 2-3 times the rate of inflation driving more people to either cut back or as some I know cut it out altogether in favor of just OTA with Netflix or some other alternate delivery system.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

BenJF3 said:


> Plus, I'm sick of everyone citing "Programming Costs"! There should be no such things as Programming Costs, it's absurd! Content providers are totally and completely dependent on the carrier (be it D*, E*, FiOS, Cable, etc) for distribution of its programming. They should be providing it to them for FREE as was the intended business model where the advertising paid for distribution.


Considering the significant drop in advertising revenue as of late, your suggestion is not a realistic model. The stations make their money from 2 main areas: advertising and subscription revenues. The advertising revenue has been severely damaged due to the economic situation. Therefore, the stations have only 1 other source of revenue, subscription fees, that they have control over.

The other option, of course, is to cut back on new or original programming. This option, though, would then damage the viewership numbers/ratings, which in turn affects the advertising revenue (less viewers = less advertising revenue) and it becomes a vicious cycle.

Unfortunately, there aren't an awful lot of other options.

Some channels, though, have outlived their usefulness. Universal HD, for example. Is there any content on that channel that isn't on USA, NBC, or any of the other NBC Universal-owned networks just a short time before? That channel was useful and popular when the other NBC Universal-owned networks didn't have their own HD feeds, but unless it has some original programming, it can't justify it's subscription fees.


----------



## BenJF3 (Sep 12, 2008)

Maybe, but the point is that the situation was allowed to deteriorate into. The reason ad revenue is down is because of the obscene programming costs. Sports "stars" (used loosely) and actors, etc. making obscene money are driving up costs all the way around. The problem is that the people have the power to get lower prices but lack the will.


----------



## tecumseh (Jan 17, 2009)

Tron said:


> I know someone mentioned it before, but imagine a TV ad from Directv that went like this : (almost like some politcal ad with a 'serious voice' voiceover)
> "We know these are tough economic times...and while other providers [make obvious reference to Dish and/or cable] decided to raise prices and take more of your hard-earned money in these difficult times, we at Directv have initiated a price-freeze good until March 2010!"
> "In fact, if you are a current Dishnetwork customer and your rates have been raised, just send us a copy of the bill with the raised rates and we will glady give you [insert TBD credits here] per month for the next 12 months!"
> 
> Anyway, you get the idea...I can't imagine how many customers that would take away from Dish, but I would think it would be a great PR stunt/blitz/etc...


Schooner Tuna - The tuna with a HEART!!!!:lol::lol:


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

tecumseh said:


> Schooner Tuna - The tuna with a HEART!!!!:lol::lol:


Thumbs up for the obscure Mr. Mom (Terri Garr, Michael Keaton) reference.


----------

