# If I add an RVU TV, how much more will I pay per month?



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

I currently pay the Advanced Receiver fee - HD Monthly ($10) and I pay $6 for my primary TV (which is rebated back).

I have an HR34, if I add an RVU TV to my setup, how much more will I pay? Do I have to pay to get MRV? How much? I take it the RVU client is $6 too.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

You would just pay the additional $6/month for the RVU client TV.

- Merg


----------



## adidas208 (Dec 1, 2011)

Exact same as if you had added an additional dvr or reg rcvr.....


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I don't believe you have to have Whole Home DVR service in order to use RVU between an HR34 and a Samsung TV. You just have to pay the $6 client fee for the TV. I don't think we have heard any concrete info on what happens when you go above 3 RVU clients yet either. I'm hoping DirecTV allows them for free since you can only use 3 at a time anyway.


----------



## Sunner73 (Feb 29, 2012)

Beerstalker said:


> I don't believe you have to have Whole Home DVR service in order to use RVU between an HR34 and a Samsung TV. You just have to pay the $6 client fee for the TV. I don't think we have heard any concrete info on what happens when you go above 3 RVU clients yet either. I'm hoping DirecTV allows them for free since you can only use 3 at a time anyway.


I can not believe that when a customer purchases a RVU ready Samsung TV coupled with the HMC HR34 that the client fee "IS" the same as if DTV were to have them ship them a receiver, good grief, the actual receiver has their costs while the Samsung TV doesn't cost DTV a penny..... What's wrong with this picture.... There should at least be a price break, ie, maybe something like $3 instead of the $6. I really don't see DTV doing it for free but a nominal charge would be incentive for more customers to go the RVU route as a way of saving a few bucks, especially in this economy.

What possible motivation is there for "any" customer to go that route? A cleaner installation... remote control interface... possibly but from what I've been reading the RVU functionality is still not like an actual receiver, ie, DVR and may be some time away.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Sunner73 said:


> I'm can not believe that when a customer purchases a RVU ready Samsung TV coupled with the HMC HR34 that the client fee "IS" the same as if DTV were to have them ship them a receiver, good grief, the actual receiver has their costs while the Samsung TV doesn't cost DTV a penny..... What's wrong with this picture.... There should at least be a price break, ie, maybe something like $3 instead of the $6. I really don't see DTV doing it for free but a nominal charge would be incentive for more customers to go the RVU route as a way of saving a few bucks, especially in this economy.
> 
> What possible motivation is there for "any" customer to go that route? A cleaner installation... remote control interface... possibly but from what I've been reading the RVU functionality is still not like an actual receiver, ie, DVR and may be some time away.


The $6 fee is not for the cost of receiver that DirecTV is supplying. The $6 fee is so that DirecTV can mirror the programming package from the main receiver to any clients that are connected. Otherwise, you would need to purchase a separate programming package for each receiver (and an RVU client really is a receiver in a sense) in the house.

- Merg


----------



## Sunner73 (Feb 29, 2012)

The Merg said:


> The $6 fee is not for the cost of receiver that DirecTV is supplying. The $6 fee is so that DirecTV can mirror the programming package from the main receiver to any clients that are connected. Otherwise, you would need to purchase a separate programming package for each receiver (and an RVU client really is a receiver in a sense) in the house.
> 
> - Merg


Exactly my point... obviously the $6 fee for the HR34 is not what I'm referring to. It's the RVU client (in the TV) that is being charged the additional $6 (as a 2nd receiver) that's got me riled up, it's the principle more than anything.

Again it goes back to my post, ie, it doesn't cost them (DTV) anything to activate the RVU client (realistically nothing more than the process to activate an actual receiver), while "the" receiver itself does cost them $ to produce & ship to the customer.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

"Sunner73" said:


> Exactly my point... obviously the $6 fee for the HR34 is not what I'm referring to. It's the RVU client (in the TV) that is being charged the additional $6 (as a 2nd receiver) that's got me riled up, it's the principle more than anything.
> 
> Again it goes back to my post, ie, it doesn't cost them (DTV) anything to activate the RVU client (realistically nothing more than the process to activate an actual receiver), while "the" receiver itself does cost them $ to produce & ship to the customer.


And my point was that it doesn't matter that it is a receiver or not. The cost is to allow DirecTV to mirror the programming to that RVU client.

- Merg


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

exactly, case and point, the fee is the same if you were to activate an OWN receiver. is not about the hardware, is about mirroring the programing package to the different rooms in your house regardless of how you get the programming.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

peds48 said:


> exactly, case and point, the fee is the same if you were to activate an OWN receiver. is not about the hardware, is about mirroring the programing package to the different rooms in your house regardless of how you get the programming.


That sounds like a good way to justify it, but its actually a way for DIRECTV to increase profits, w/o raising prices.


----------



## Sunner73 (Feb 29, 2012)

RACJ2 said:


> That sounds like a good way to justify it, but its actually a way for DIRECTV to increase profits, w/o raising prices.


You summed it up nicely.... you would think though that DTV "would" like to exploit the fact that they could charge a "lesser" fee than the $6 (and still making $) and have NO financial investment with the RVU client thus encouraging their customers to obtain the "RVU TVs".

I know that I would definitely purchase one of these TVs and take advantage of the RVU client capability "IF" there was incentive to do so ($). Just thinking about saving a few bucks each and every month going forward.... If a customer needs a new TV anyway then it could persuade them to get one with RVU instead of the many others that don't have it and potentially start saving a few $.

It shouldn't be hard for them to establish a "lesser fee" for such a thing. Unless they just don't care about their customers using RVU.

In closing, to me it is simply the point of it, of course a few $'s isn't going allow for anything more than 8-10 lattes/yr @ your favorite espresso shop but hey, money saved would be money earned and there "could" be a reason to buy an RVU TV.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

this (DirecTV's)pricing scheme is the same one that is used by the cell companies when you add a line to a family plan, you pay 10.00 dollars even if you buy the phone outright. so you can share your family minutes (programming) to the second cell phone.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

And are we sure there's no fee to activate the RVU function? There is an annual fee to be a RVU Alliance promoter or contributor ($15000 or $8000 a year), I know Directv is a founding member but they probably still have to pay, or if there is any licensing fee.


----------



## Sunner73 (Feb 29, 2012)

dpeters11 said:


> And are we sure there's no fee to activate the RVU function? There is an annual fee to be a RVU Alliance promoter or contributor ($15000 or $8000 a year), I know Directv is a founding member but they probably still have to pay, or if there is any licensing fee.


A very good question... and it would be nice to actually know "if" Directv pays something like that or what they do pay for being a RVU promoter or contributor.

If so, then I could see them not backing off of the fee at all.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I do know the $15000 and $8000 are accurate to join now, and it's a yearly fee. From the order form to get the RVU specification, thats $500 but only for evaluation to become a member, you must be a member to have a license to use the technology.

But, in the grand scheme of things, even the $15000 is a fairly small cost.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

Sunner73 said:


> I really don't see DTV doing it for free but a nominal charge would be incentive for more customers to go the RVU route as a way of saving a few bucks, especially in this economy..


So you're saying, in this economy, the most advanced and most expensive equipment at this time is your way of saving a few dollars?
And keep in mind with the Dish Hopper, you still pay the mirroring fees for the joey's even though they have no tuner.
It is crazy to think that any cable provider in the country would charge you based on the number of TV's you want to watch, except, pretty much all of them do.
Also remember, the costs are set by the companies and just because we buy expensive devices does not mean our monthly rates will go down. Luckily its not the contrary.


----------



## Sunner73 (Feb 29, 2012)

goinsleeper said:


> So you're saying, in this economy, the most advanced and most expensive equipment at this time is your way of saving a few dollars?
> And keep in mind with the Dish Hopper, you still pay the mirroring fees for the joey's even though they have no tuner.
> It is crazy to think that any cable provider in the country would charge you based on the number of TV's you want to watch, except, pretty much all of them do.
> Also remember, the costs are set by the companies and just because we buy expensive devices does not mean our monthly rates will go down. Luckily its not the contrary.


Just because I or somebody else might purchase one of these TVs has nothing to do with "trying to save money in this economy" but if a TV is needed then it is needed, it shouldn't matter if it is a entry level or top of the line model or anything in between. If a person has enough $ then buy what you want and can afford. It is about being able to possibly save a few dollars on monthly fees. Obviously keeping in mind my earlier P.O.V. (RVU client vs Directv supplied receiver).

A person who wants to try and save money if possible where and when they can it should be allowed to, even if they want to buy one of the "currently" somewhat expensive Samsungs.

Last time I noticed everybody including the wealthy save where they can just so they can spend it somewhere else.



goinsleeper said:


> And keep in mind with the Dish Hopper, you still pay the mirroring fees for the joey's even though they have no tuner.


I have never had Dish nor did I know that the "Joey" has no tuner... so in effect it has the exact same issue as a RVU client, except the Joey is a piece of hardware that Dish has to provide... unlike the RVU TV. And I believe they charge $7 instead of the 6. So... a slighty different issue.



goinsleeper said:


> It is crazy to think that any cable provider in the country would charge you based on the number of TV's you want to watch, except, pretty much all of them do.


I totally agree with you on that.

I was just providing a point of view... mine. LOL


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Sunner73 said:


> You summed it up nicely.... you would think though that DTV "would" like to exploit the fact that they could charge a "lesser" fee than the $6 (and still making $) and have NO financial investment with the RVU client thus encouraging their customers to obtain the "RVU TVs".
> 
> I know that I would definitely purchase one of these TVs and take advantage of the RVU client capability "IF" there was incentive to do so ($)...


The advantage of purchasing the RVU TV, is that there are no additional upfront cost for a receiver and no receiver to deal with. So if someone wants to hang their flat screen on the wall, there's no box to hide. Or if the TV is on a dresser in the bedroom, no ugly box sitting on the dresser. Similar to when I had a cablecard in my TV, when I had Time Warner.

As far as cost goes, they probably do have the R&D cost to cover. Although I think that probably won't take long to recoup, when you eliminate having a to supply hardware.


----------

