# Here's what we dreaded:$6 lease fee for new 211HD etc. receivers



## Rraspy (Oct 9, 2003)

If you check out the other threads under general discussion, this seems to be what we all dreaded if you have an HD receiver, like 6000 or 811 and your thinking of upgrading under their deal to get a 211 etc. to get your HD locals through dish instead of using your off air antenna to get your HD locals etc.

This is for people without the HD package. The dreaded monthly lease exists[/B]


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

$6 instead of $5 for a SD receiver ... one dollar more. Don't panic.


----------



## thxultra (Feb 1, 2005)

Sounds fair to me. If you want HD you should get the HD package.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Add up the fees $5.00 more for the everything pack $1.00 more for HD lease and the big draded rumor $2.00 more to use the VIP622 DVR feature so that adds up to $8 increase, now comstat in the SF Bay area is cheaper as they offered me a 1 year permium HD plan for $96.00 per month. As cable gets more competitive with rates and dish continues to raise rates this can hurt dish in the behind:nono2:


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

tomcrown1 said:


> Add up the fees $5.00 more for the everything pack $1.00 more for HD lease and the big draded rumor $2.00 more to use the VIP622 DVR feature so that adds up to $8 increase, now comstat in the SF Bay area is cheaper as they offered me a 1 year permium HD plan for $96.00 per month. As cable gets more competitive with rates and dish continues to raise rates this can hurt dish in the behind:nono2:


Our local company Mediacom has dual tuner HD DVR and the package with all premium networks is about $95 a month with HD feeds of HBO, Max, Showtime, TMC, and Starz. Cable and Dish cost about the same now. Dish is no longer a savings at all. Plus with cable we can at least get the analog 2-78 in all the other rooms in the house with no extra cost.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

yeah, but those 2-78 are old cable quality and not digital quality like they would be from dish or via digital cable, so the picture quality will be significantly worse


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Rogueone said:


> yeah, but those 2-78 are old cable quality and not digital quality like they would be from dish or via digital cable, so the picture quality will be significantly worse


True its not as good, but on the bedrooms TVs and the kitchen TV it doesn't really matter much because they are smaller. Our Living Room and Family Room both have a digital box. For some reason the digital boxes make the analog channels look better than usual.


----------



## Rraspy (Oct 9, 2003)

James Long said:


> $6 instead of $5 for a SD receiver ... one dollar more. Don't panic.


It's zero if you own your receiver and are holding on to it and not trading it in.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

The retailer chat I watched said they were raising the additional receiver fee for HD receivers by $1.

The lease fee was staying the same $5 for additional receivers, free leasing for 1st receiver


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

This is soooo screwed up, i.e. the new rates and how everywhere you look, there's a new charge being levied. This is in addition to the package rate increases! Why do all the other fees have to go up simultaneously, i.e. fees on DVRs (which are already borderline illegal), fees on leases, fees on HD receivers, etc.? It's getting to the point that adding a single receiver to an existing account with new no programming is adding an extra $15/month to the bottom line!

I can see myself easily getting screwed on some technicality simply by moving from a 921 to a 622 and having my monthly rate go up, say, $11/month, for essentially no reason (i.e. swapping one dual-tuner HD receiver for another should have no net monthly cost change, right?).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We have more heat than light at the moment.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

Someone else pointed out that if you only have 1 HD receiver, make it the primary and you won't have to pay the extra $1. That said, I saw another thread that was closed for trying to subvert the additional outlet fee on the 622. While i agree that the phone connection is needed, and that Vonage shouldn't be supported since the phone conenction is for proof of location, I haven't had a home phone in 8 years, and I disagree with that additional outlet fee in principal just like I disagree with the fact that they want to charge $1 more a month for an HD receiver as an additional receiver. If it ONLY applied ot the new ones, I could see that, but rasing it on the current ones is BS. If I can save money on my bill legally, then I will do so. Those who are pirating E* by sharing accounts should be punished, but I shouldn't be partially punsihed along with them because I choose not to have a home phone. Heck, I can now get DSL without a phone line and # (part of Verizon's buyout of MCI) and save that money, so the reasoning is less and less. Just wait till they tie the receivers to the siwthces and LNBs, and you will have to call them if you make ANY change like with WinDoZe XP and changing out a motherboard and having to reactivate it. That doesn't stop piracy. You can download a no code version of XP off the net and not have to worry about it. The people that are hurt are the end users with the kind of garbage, not the bad guys......


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

Vonage works well enough for my friend to avoid the $5 fee on his 522.


----------



## Harmeister (Jan 6, 2006)

kb7oeb said:


> Vonage works well enough for my friend to avoid the $5 fee on his 522.


It works for me (vonage and a 942), so you now have first hand experience that it works.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

Yes, some people can get it to work, but E* does not want it to work because of the fact that you can move it around and still have it on a phone line. With a regualr land line, they know where it is at. Plus, once again, Vonage is useless for me since I have relied exclusively on a cell phone for 8 years and see no reason to pay $25 for something I would not use. I already get all the feature of vonage, but since I am always on the go, the cell phone is the better choice even with the higher monthly price. If I wanted a home phone, I would just get Verizon's cheapest package without long distance since I have free long distance on my cell already and can get a basic line for $12 a month.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

larrystotler said:


> Yes, some people can get it to work, but E* does not want it to work because of the fact that you can move it around and still have it on a phone line. With a regualr land line, they know where it is at.


They have the POTENTIAL of knowing where it is at ... I seem to remember people 'moving' and still connecting the phone line - with E* not bothering to verify if the check in calls are coming from the service address or some other place. As long as the check ins are coming from the phone number on the account they seem happy. (E* is less worried about the location of the boxes and more worried about not having all boxes on the account at the same location.)

Since you can port your current number over to Vonage I don't see how E* could keep track of the difference. Is 773-555-0131 a phone number served by AT&T (formerly SBC, formerly Ameritech, formerly Illinois Bell/AT&T) or a competitive reseller or Vonage? E* doesn't know.

The only issue with Vonage is that E* receivers have modems in them that require a certain quality of service. Modems don't always work on voice quality lines. (I believe E* has improved their modems to handle poor quality lines and Vonage has improved their service to get past the VoIP quality issues.) There may also have been an issue in the past with Vonage not passing the ANI of the caller correctly (ANI is basically unblockable Caller ID that traces back to the line the call is coming from and is commonly used on toll free services to identify customers).

If Vonage offered a service where the SAME phone number was available in multiple locations it would present a problem. Joe's Vonage box in LA and Jack's Vonage box in NY both giving the ANI of 733-555-0131 would be a bad thing. I don't believe that Vonage offers that service or plans to.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> If Vonage offered a service where the SAME phone number was available in multiple locations it would present a problem. Joe's Vonage box in LA and Jack's Vonage box in NY both giving the ANI of 733-555-0131 would be a bad thing. I don't believe that Vonage offers that service or plans to.


I wouldn't think so either... especially when you consider that it means a phone call TO that box would have to ring in multiple locations!


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

Slordak said:


> This is soooo screwed up, i.e. the new rates and how everywhere you look, there's a new charge being levied. This is in addition to the package rate increases! Why do all the other fees have to go up simultaneously, i.e. fees on DVRs (which are already borderline illegal), fees on leases, fees on HD receivers, etc.? It's getting to the point that adding a single receiver to an existing account with new no programming is adding an extra $15/month to the bottom line!
> 
> I can see myself easily getting screwed on some technicality simply by moving from a 921 to a 622 and having my monthly rate go up, say, $11/month, for essentially no reason (i.e. swapping one dual-tuner HD receiver for another should have no net monthly cost change, right?).


I agree, there is no justification for this. Why should you be punished if you can get good OTA reception of your local HD's?


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

thxultra said:


> Sounds fair to me. If you want HD you should get the HD package.


If all the HD that someone cares about can be obtained OTA, why should Dish have the right to penalize them?


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

BFG said:


> The retailer chat I watched said they were raising the additional receiver fee for HD receivers by $1.
> 
> The lease fee was staying the same $5 for additional receivers, free leasing for 1st receiver


Guess I'll replace my 6000 with my mothballed 3700.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

invaliduser88 said:


> If all the HD that someone cares about can be obtained OTA, why should Dish have the right to penalize them?


If all someone wants to watch is OTA HD... then why lease/buy a Dish receiver? Either buy an HDTV that has a built-in tuner, or buy a separate digital OTA tuner, like the one Radio Shack was selling recently for about $90.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

invaliduser88 said:


> Guess I'll replace my 6000 with my mothballed 3700.


The 6000 and 811 are not subject to these new fees. Their additional outlet fee will remain $5 and they will not be subject to the Not having HD Penalty fee. This will only apply to the new ViP receivers.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

HDMe said:


> If all someone wants to watch is OTA HD... then why lease/buy a Dish receiver? Either buy an HDTV that has a built-in tuner, or buy a separate digital OTA tuner, like the one Radio Shack was selling recently for about $90.


What if he got his when they were doing the Free Dish, and after his commit was up decided that the HD package was worthless, but likes having the HD OTA and uses it as an SD receiver or for HBO HD and/or SHOW HD? There are quite a few subs who have dropped the HD Pack since it may lack "compelling content" for them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

larrystotler said:


> What if he got his when they were doing the Free Dish, and after his commit was up decided that the HD package was worthless, but likes having the HD OTA and uses it as an SD receiver or for HBO HD and/or SHOW HD? There are quite a few subs who have dropped the HD Pack since it may lack "compelling content" for them.


Then (if it is a leased receiver)... he could still return the 811, for example, and get an SD receiver... then get one of the cheaper available OTA digital receivers like I mentioned.

I'm not saying I like what Dish is doing with regards to fees... and in many cases I disagree with the fees and extra charges too... I'm just pointing out that in the case of this particular fee, there are alternative ways to get the OTA signals than just the Dish receiver.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Then (if it is a leased receiver)... he could still return the 811, for example, and get an SD receiver... then get one of the cheaper available OTA digital receivers like I mentioned.


If he got it thru free dish, he would already own it. So why pay for a decoder if he already has it. I have an 811, and I am still getting the PH pack free for the 6 months, but I may decide to drop it when that it done since I don't actually watch it or the Voom channels that much. I don't even watch the OTA that much. Most of my viewing is for Sci-Fi, Nick, Toon, and channels that are a long way from HD. Disc HD is nice, but my son would prefer Animal Planet HD, because he watches that more than any other channel.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

larrystotler said:


> If he got it thru free dish, he would already own it. So why pay for a decoder if he already has it. I have an 811, and I am still getting the PH pack free for the 6 months, but I may decide to drop it when that it done since I don't actually watch it or the Voom channels that much. I don't even watch the OTA that much. Most of my viewing is for Sci-Fi, Nick, Toon, and channels that are a long way from HD. Disc HD is nice, but my son would prefer Animal Planet HD, because he watches that more than any other channel.


I could be wrong... but I *thought* the "penalty" fee only applies to leased receivers. People who own their HD receivers do not have to subscribe to the HD pack. So if he owns his 811, then he would not be subject to the requirement for HD pack or the penalty fee.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

That is correct NOW. However, with the ViP units, you will pay the No HD Penalty whether you own it or lease it. Makes me wanna upgrade NO time soon......


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If you don't want HD don't get a HD tuner. OK?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

larrystotler said:


> That is correct NOW. However, with the ViP units, you will pay the No HD Penalty whether you own it or lease it. Makes me wanna upgrade NO time soon......


Which takes us full circle back to my original question... why get an HD receiver if you don't want the HD?


----------



## Mike Johnson (Jan 16, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Which takes us full circle back to my original question... why get an HD receiver if you don't want the HD?


For the Digital OTA. I have a co-worker that is a Dish customer, and would like to have a Dish HD receiver for no other reason than to get Digital OTA in addition to his current Dish programming. Strange, but that's what he wants.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

Mike Johnson said:


> For the Digital OTA. I have a co-worker that is a Dish customer, and would like to have a Dish HD receiver for no other reason than to get Digital OTA in addition to his current Dish programming. Strange, but that's what he wants.


So have him get a left over 942 or 921 or 811, these should continue to be available for awhile for some low price's, possibly no more then a 522/625 or 301/311, and he can continue subbing to the same SD programing from E*. This is only fare, especially since their will be a limited number of VIP series receivers for a while and the only one's that need them are those that want to sub to one of the new HD packs that has MPeg4 channels.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

The old way was if you lease an 811 you had to pay for HD pack but if you bought it you didn't have to.

HBO, Showtime, DishPPV and maybe someday Starz are valid reasons to want an HD box and not necessarily the HD package. I don't think you should have to a penalty if you buy your mpeg4 receiver but don't want the new hd packages. To replicate what an 811 could get you have an additional $12 in fees (HD fee + LIL for guide).

At this point point I'll stick with my 811 until they shut off mpeg2 and if they still have the same terms at the cutoff I will probably cancel.


----------

