# Dish Announces Price Increases for 2/1/07 and 'a la carte' discussion



## TNGTony

I am surprised I didn't see a thread about this. Anyway, in the Retailer Chat yesterday, Dish announced what is now its annual price changes on many packages. The rate changes range from a $2.99 reduction to a $10 increase

From http://ekb.dbstalk.com/rateincrease2007.htm

BASIC PACKAGES
Dish Family No Change
America's Top 60 renamed >> America's Top 100 -- *No Change *
America's Top 60 Plus renamed >> America's Top 100 Plus -- *No Change *
America's Top 120 renamed >> America's Top 200 *$3 increase*
America's Top 180 renamed >> America's Top 250 *$3 increase*
America's Everything Pack -This package includes the DVR service fee. *$5 increase*

The new AT100 and AT100+ will contain the 32 Muzak audio channels available on AT120 now

Dish Latino *No Change *
Dish Latino Plus *No Change *
Dish Latino Dos *$2 increase*
Dish Latino Max *$2 increase*
Dish Latino Everything (Package no longer available to new subscribers) *$5 increase* 
Basic Package + Any 2 Premium Packages - Discontinued. *$2.00 increase*

Great Wall Package * No Change *

High Definition Packages

HD Pack Package *No Change *
($20 with any basic package or $29.99 stand alone 
(stand alone HD Pack not available to Lease Subscribers or Subscribers under contract. There is a $6 HD Enabling Fee added to this Price)

HD Bronze Discontinued - New AT100+HD Pack -- *No Change*
HD Silver Discontinued - New AT200+HD Pack -- *$3 Increase*
HD Gold Discontinued - New AT250+ HD Pack -- *$3 Increase*
HD Platinum Discontinued. - New AEP + HD Pack -- *$10 Increase!!!!!*

Premium Packages

HBO The Works *No Change *
Showtime Unlimited *$1 Increase* 
Cinemax (Multi-Max) *$1 Increase* 
Starz *$1 Increase* 
Playboy *No Change *

Any 2 Premium Packages Or 1 premium package & Playboy -- *$0.99 Decrease *
Any 3 Premium Packages Or 2 premium packages & Playboy -- *$0.01 Increase*
Any 4 Premium Packages Or 3 premium package & Playboy -- *$2.01 Increase*
All 4 Premium Packages + Playboy -- *$2.99 Decrease *

History of Dish Network's Price Increases HERE

See ya
Tony


----------



## stuart628

This is a huge discussion at the other site. Wow $10 for the AEP and HD Pack!?!


----------



## koralis

> HD Pack Package No Change
> ($20 with any basic package or $29.99 stand alone
> (stand alone HD Pack not available to Lease Subscribers or Subscribers under contract. There is a $6 HD Enabling Fee added to this Price)


Criminy... +$26 to get a few HD channels added to the Top 100? I guess I'll never be seeing dish's HD offerings. It's just too much for too little.


----------



## TNGTony

koralis, the HD enabling fee is only added of you are NOT adding the HD pack to a basic package.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

Yep no more Plat pack for me. It looks like I will pass on the Extra 7.00 increase , since I can't escape the 3.00 part of the price increase,and downgrade to top 180/250 + hd, or possibly the top 200 + hd . I won't escape the dvr fees but I will escape some of the price increase. I will also give all my movie money to either Blockbuster or NEtflix since Dish wants to be the New "Cable pig".


----------



## saweetnesstrev

uhmm Whats the price for HD PLATNIUM AEP then??


----------



## TNGTony

HD Platinum is now $99.99 (+ Locals $104.99)

AEP is now $84.99 (Locals $94.99) it is going to be $89.99 ($5 increase)

The HD Pack is $20.00

Soooo.

AEP+HD Pack will be $109.99 (+Locals $114.99)

Mr. professor tells me that this is a 10% increase 

See ya
Tony


----------



## saweetnesstrev

10 percent increase wtf? my parents are gonna be pissed


----------



## joblo

Wow, this is wonderful and exciting news!

But what are the 40 channels being added to Top 60, the 80 channels being added to Top 120, and the 70 channels are being added to Top 180?


----------



## Paul Secic

TNGTony said:


> HD Platinum is now $99.99 (+ Locals $104.99)
> 
> AEP is now $84.99 (Locals $94.99) it is going to be $89.99 ($5 increase)
> 
> The HD Pack is $20.00
> 
> Soooo.
> 
> AEP+HD Pack will be $109.99 (+Locals $114.99)
> 
> Mr. professor tells me that this is a 10% increase
> 
> See ya
> Tony


I wonder if Style & Hallmark Channel will be in AT 200? Hope so!


----------



## Link

They need to add some things to the Top 120 (or 200 whatever now) to justify raising it $3.00. E* is just as bad as cable now on price increases--maybe worse....I think the local cable here went up $1.00-2.00 on the basic package. But cable at least does move some of the channels on the digital tier down to the basic level. E* raises the rates and never offers subscribers anything in return.


----------



## Paul Secic

Link said:


> They need to add some things to the Top 120 (or 200 whatever now) to justify raising it $3.00. E* is just as bad as cable now on price increases--maybe worse....I think the local cable here went up $1.00-2.00 on the basic package. But cable at least does move some of the channels on the digital tier down to the basic level. E* raises the rates and never offers subscribers anything in return.


Comcast in the SF Bay Area is going up $7 if I rember correctly. The corperate site says nothing of the increase, so Charlie willl give us a nice New Years gift. A friend of mine got a LCD HDTV & E, but hasn't ordered HD yet. Now with this he'll never will. Hes a school princible and just watches TV one or two hours a night.


----------



## TreeFarm

OK, maybe we won't switch to Dish.    

And it's time to push ala carte legislation.


----------



## Papote

Hmm... If I buy an annual subscription now would I keep the current fee until next years renewal?


----------



## TNGTony

Papote: yup

All..
Also folks keep in mind that AT60 will be getting the 32 Muzak CD channels. Add that to the 90 "channels" on the package now (including all the barkers, shopping and PI channels) that puts you well over 100.

At120 curently has 225 "channels" including audio, cd, sirius, barkers, shopping an dPI channels

At180 currently has 285 "channels" now too.

See ya
Tony


----------



## KingJerky

I recall a chat that stated rates would not change for 2 years... It could be that I've killed/damaged those brain cells, but I could've sworn there was a promise made at the last rate hike to that effect.

Am I wrong? I guess it doesn't matter as this will happen regardless... no matter how disappointing.

I have the DEP + HD package so I'm getting hit the hardest... Grrrrr.


----------



## TNGTony

AT60 (now AT100) was price guaranteed through January 2008.
The rest were fair game


----------



## DoyleS

Typically you keep the annual fee until next year. That was what I did last year. The difficulty comes when you are also after HD. Since you get hit with an HD enabling fee unless you take one of the AT +HD packages. I think I may be moving down from the 180 to the 120 pack. For the number of times I watch the Military channel, I think I can live without it. The movie channels are relatively lame and Netflix or Blockbuster is a far better deal for me for movies. At least they let me know before the automatic resignup comes along in mid January. If I want more, I can always add it. I think I'll try it for awhile with the AT200+HD. 

..Doyle


----------



## rdr

KingJerky said:


> I recall a chat that stated rates would not change for 2 years... It could be that I've killed/damaged those brain cells, but I could've sworn there was a promise made at the last rate hike to that effect.
> 
> Am I wrong? I guess it doesn't matter as this will happen regardless... no matter how disappointing.
> 
> I have the DEP + HD package so I'm getting hit the hardest... Grrrrr.


what is dep?


----------



## TonyM

I think he meant AEP (Americas Almost Everything Pack)


----------



## eatonjb

where can i get info on the new channels added.. link? and new HD's?

X fingers!!! come on.. no wammy!!! I need HD's!


----------



## saweetnesstrev

who wants the 32 mono muzak channels is beyond me,, waste of bandwidth.


----------



## TNGTony

It's the stereo music channels that are being added to AT60. The mono channels are only part of AT180/250

See ya
Tony


----------



## Link

TNGTony said:


> AT60 (now AT100) was price guaranteed through January 2008.
> The rest were fair game


I'd say the AT60 will be the best value considering AT120 will cost $13 more.

I wonder how the E* packages will compare with D*. 
Directv's Total Choice (currently $44.99 with locals) already includes more stations than the AT120 with Lifetime Movie Network, TV One, Sleuth, National Geographic, and Hallmark just to name a few.

E* always keeps these channels in the AT180 package which will now cost $57.99 vs. Total Choice at $44.99. Even if D* raised $3.00 that still would be a $10 difference. I know AT180 also has the Encore movie channels, but still they aren't worth the cost difference to get the basic channels most people want.


----------



## trido

joblo said:


> Wow, this is wonderful and exciting news!
> 
> But what are the 40 channels being added to Top 60, the 80 channels being added to Top 120, and the 70 channels are being added to Top 180?


well i think with the top60 it is only adding 30 something music cd channels.

trido


----------



## James Long

I find it interesting that we are basically being slid up a tier over time.
I started at AT100 a few years back ...
Until Feb 2001 AT100 was $29.95 and now in Feb 2007 "AT100" will be $29.95
The new AT200 for $42.99 is comprable to the old AT150, which hit $42.99 in Feb 2003.

By staying with AT100 all these years E* has slowly bumped me up to "the next tier". In Feb I will be paying for AT200 what I would have paid for AT150 three years ago, if I wanted to pay $42.99 plus locals/etc for TV. (I'm stingy.)

Now if I could only get Sirius music only on a car radio or Sirius talk on my home receiver for those prices. 

Fortunately D* will be following with their annual price increase ... just to keep the status quo.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I notice the most griping about the $10 increase for the "Everything" package customers.

Where were all those people last year when Dish was giving you a $5 discount for having the "Everything" pack?

All this past year, when everyone else was paying $20 more for the HD, the "Everything" people were only paying $15 more for the HD... and I didn't hear them all lining up to thank Dish for the $5 discount, but I hear them now lining up to complain that this was taken away.

Now they are just being asked to pay proportional to what the rest of us pay... which seems reasonable to me, and they got a whole year of lower proportional payments... but now the grip-fest starts at why they are being increased so much more.

How quickly people forget!


----------



## John W

HDMe said:


> I notice the most griping about the $10 increase for the "Everything" package customers.
> 
> Where were all those people last year when Dish was giving you a $5 discount for having the "Everything" pack?
> 
> All this past year, when everyone else was paying $20 more for the HD, the "Everything" people were only paying $15 more for the HD... and I didn't hear them all lining up to thank Dish for the $5 discount, but I hear them now lining up to complain that this was taken away.
> 
> Now they are just being asked to pay proportional to what the rest of us pay... which seems reasonable to me, and they got a whole year of lower proportional payments... but now the grip-fest starts at why they are being increased so much more.
> 
> How quickly people forget!


Sounds like Charlie has you right where he wants you.


----------



## wcswett

Hmmm... plus $10 for my Platinum HD and minus $6 for the Distants I no longer get. That's still "ouch".

I guess I'll look forward to the April 6 anniversary of my HD DVR swap so I can get another discounted receiver off Charlie to make up for this.

--- WCS


----------



## Link

trido said:


> well i think with the top60 it is only adding 30 something music cd channels.
> 
> trido


Ironic it seems to be the only package getting anything added and yet the cost of it isn't raising at all.


----------



## jldhawk

I have NO problem with a $3.00 increase IF they finally give us the RSN's in HD!


----------



## Link

HDMe said:


> I notice the most griping about the $10 increase for the "Everything" package customers.
> 
> Where were all those people last year when Dish was giving you a $5 discount for having the "Everything" pack?
> 
> All this past year, when everyone else was paying $20 more for the HD, the "Everything" people were only paying $15 more for the HD... and I didn't hear them all lining up to thank Dish for the $5 discount, but I hear them now lining up to complain that this was taken away.
> 
> Now they are just being asked to pay proportional to what the rest of us pay... which seems reasonable to me, and they got a whole year of lower proportional payments... but now the grip-fest starts at why they are being increased so much more.
> 
> How quickly people forget!


I think the problem is the "Everything" package used to offer quite a savings to customers when it first was offered and also included no DVR fees with that package but now from what I understand they are raising the cost and making you pay the DVR fee??

A bundled package should be cheaper esepcially when you get that much programming.


----------



## DougRuss

jldhawk said:


> I have NO problem with a $3.00 increase IF they finally give us the RSN's in HD!


Don't Hold your Breath waiting !:nono2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

John W said:


> Sounds like Charlie has you right where he wants you.


Not sure what that is supposed to mean.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Link said:


> I think the problem is the "Everything" package used to offer quite a savings to customers when it first was offered and also included no DVR fees with that package but now from what I understand they are raising the cost and making you pay the DVR fee??
> 
> A bundled package should be cheaper esepcially when you get that much programming.


The bundled package is cheaper than if you paid individually for all the premiums. What the "Everything" pack has that the next lowest tier has are all the HBO, SHO, Starz, Cinemax, plus a few extras like NBATV thrown in... and you are paying less than if you paid for each premium channel separately... there is a bundled discount.

Also, I have seen nothing to indicate that the DVR fee is charged to "Everything" customers... so that is another discount of $5.98 x however many of those DVRs you have activated additional savings for the bundle.

The big gripe here seems to be that "Everything" pack customers will now have to pay the same cost as the rest of us for their HD.

Now, if folks want to gripe about the $3 or $5 increase to otherwise package prices, that is a fine discussion to have (one we have every year it seems)... but I see no reason to grip over the other half of that money for "Everything" pack customers who were cut an extra special deal this past year beyond what was normally expected. It was a gift to be appreciated... not griped about now.


----------



## bderouen

jldhawk said:


> I have NO problem with a $3.00 increase IF they finally give us the RSN's in HD!


I'm still kinda new to all this. "RSN"'s?? What's that?


----------



## James Long

RSN = Regional Sports Networks ---- Some are uplinked in HD but E* has not made them available to customers.


----------



## bderouen

James Long said:


> RSN = Regional Sports Networks ---- Some are uplinked in HD but E* has not made them available to customers.


aaah.I see. Thanks, James! I'm still learning all the acronyms! :blush:


----------



## Dave

As long as we quit gripping about the high cable prices now. It seems that Charlie has finally caught up to them in there pricing structure. It was always going to be to good to last forever. Charlie has given away the company for years to get the company on its feet and running. Free stanard boxes, free PVR boxes, Free HD boxes. Did you really think he could afford to keep giving everything away and not show a profit some day. I for one am surprised it took him this many years to finally put his foot down and say enough is enough all ready. If you don't like paying your fair share, go to cable or an old fashiopned antenna and live with the locals in your area. Some of you got mad at Direct and made the switch when Charlie was smart enough to pick up Zoom and the extra HD channels. Are you going back to Direct because of a price increase? DirectV will be raising there prices considerably next year when there new Sat's come on line with there new HD channels. All the providers can only keep there prices so low for so long without losing money. Also remember some of you get mad when Charlie goes to court or turns off channels because of higher subscriber fees they and all providers have to pay and get new contracts with all the time. Our cost are going to keep going up. I for one would rather have it be 3 to 5 dollars a month, instead of cables rate of 7 to 10 dollars a month with there lacking HD content. 
Think about it for awhile.


----------



## Slamminc11

Dave said:


> ...Think about it for awhile.


You just might be asking the impossible!!!


----------



## Chris Blount

TreeFarm said:


> OK, maybe we won't switch to Dish.
> 
> And it's time to push ala carte legislation.


Don't worry. DirecTV will be raising their prices soon. As a matter of fact, don't be surprised if they also change the name of their packages.


----------



## Bob Ketcham

TreeFarm said:


> OK, maybe we won't switch to Dish.
> 
> And it's time to push ala carte legislation.


Interesting that the low cost "family friendly" Dish Family package (introduced when the ala carte legislation was threatened) is going away.

Also interesting that the name "Basic Package" is being used instead of "Dish Family" in the announcements. After all, it wouldn't be PC to not be "family friendly".


----------



## Zero327

Bob Ketcham said:


> Interesting that the low cost "family friendly" Dish Family package (introduced when the ala carte legislation was threatened) is going away.
> 
> Also interesting that the name "Basic Package" is being used instead of "Dish Family" in the announcements. After all, it wouldn't be PC to not be "family friendly".


Well ya know, someone just wants to see whether or not they can sneak TEN into the kids bedrooms at night... There will always be some form of public education channel or information subscription channel in at least every basic satellite sub package. It's an unfortunate (and rather ridiculous) sub-point the government (FCC specifically unless I'm mistaken) requires. Do you have any idea how many years I've been lobbying to have PBS taken off the air? It just wasn't much fun after they cancelled Reading Rainbow and Riverdance...


----------



## notme

So I go up $3 for what a few more audio channels? You know what charlie can do with his audio channels? Wait till the next charlie chat, I may just tell him!!!
I have a gripe, cause I pay for top 180 with locals and watch less then a 1/3 of them. But I can't get the channels I do watch other wise!!! WTF!!!


----------



## Slamminc11

Bob Ketcham said:


> Interesting that the low cost "family friendly" Dish Family package (introduced when the ala carte legislation was threatened) is going away.
> 
> Also interesting that the name "Basic Package" is being used instead of "Dish Family" in the announcements. After all, it wouldn't be PC to not be "family friendly".


Dish Family package isn't going anywhere and it isn't getting a name change. It's price isn't changing as it was frozen until 2008.


----------



## Slamminc11

notme said:


> So I go up $3 for what a few more audio channels? You know what charlie can do with his audio channels? Wait till the next charlie chat, I may just tell him!!!
> I have a gripe, cause I pay for top 180 with locals and watch less then a 1/3 of them. But I can't get the channels I do watch other wise!!! WTF!!!


yeah, he's shakin' in his snow shoes!


----------



## grooves12

If the Silver and Bronze packages are getting the same increase as their respective Top120/180 packages ($3)... 

what is justifuying the extra $5 you are paying on top of the $5 increase of the AEP package for the new AEP+HD pack??

Are they adding a new AEP only HD channel, or are they just trying to wring every dollar out of the more affluent customers they can?


----------



## James Long

grooves12 said:


> what is justifuying the extra $5 you are paying on top of the $5 increase of the AEP package for the new AEP+HD pack??


The same thing that justfied Platinum being only $15 more that AEP while the other DishHDs were $20 more than their respective AT package. You're just not getting that 'discount' any more.


----------



## Link

Are they going to keep raising the packages $3.00 year after year? At this rate they'll have to break the channels into smaller affordable packages or consumers aren't going to be able to afford satellite TV any longer. By 2010, the Top 120 will cost nearly $60 with locals.

Some people have been talking about cable rates increasing $6-$7. Is that on the basic package/expanded basic package or on a higher digital tier? I have never seen rates in my local area go up more than $2-$3 for the regular basic lineup. 

I used to be a big promoter for satellite encouraging friends and family to drop cable for it, but now I'm not so sure. I can see now why some don't want to give up cable for satellite because they can pay $45-50 for basic and have it on all of the TVs in their home. With satellite, the base package is about the same cost or higher but then requires extra receivers with fees for other rooms making the cost even more.


----------



## ChrisR

TNGTony said:


> High Definition Packages
> 
> HD Pack Package *No Change *
> ($20 with any basic package or $29.99 stand alone
> (stand alone HD Pack not available to Lease Subscribers or Subscribers under contract. There is a $6 HD Enabling Fee added to this Price)


Regarding "$29.99 Stand Alone" in reference to the HD Pack: does this mean that one can subscribe to *just* the HD channels if they own their equipment, don't have a contract and pay the $6 fee? I have tried to do this for several months (subscribe to HD only) but there is no such package, although I know there was last year. Is it being brought back?


----------



## Ohioankev

TNGTony said:


> I am surprised I didn't see a thread about this. Anyway, in the Retailer Chat yesterday, Dish announced what is now its annual price changes on many packages. The rate changes range from a $2.99 reduction to a $10 increase
> 
> From http://ekb.dbstalk.com/rateincrease2007.htm
> 
> BASIC PACKAGES
> Dish Family No Change
> America's Top 60 renamed >> America's Top 100 -- *No Change *
> America's Top 60 Plus renamed >> America's Top 100 Plus -- *No Change *
> America's Top 120 renamed >> America's Top 200 *$3 increase*
> America's Top 180 renamed >> America's Top 250 *$3 increase*
> America's Everything Pack -This package includes the DVR service fee. *$5 increase*
> 
> The new AT100 and AT100+ will contain the 32 Muzak audio channels available on AT120 now
> 
> Dish Latino *No Change *
> Dish Latino Plus *No Change *
> Dish Latino Dos *$2 increase*
> Dish Latino Max *$2 increase*
> Dish Latino Everything (Package no longer available to new subscribers) *$5 increase*
> Basic Package + Any 2 Premium Packages - Discontinued. *$2.00 increase*
> 
> Great Wall Package * No Change *
> 
> High Definition Packages
> 
> HD Pack Package *No Change *
> ($20 with any basic package or $29.99 stand alone
> (stand alone HD Pack not available to Lease Subscribers or Subscribers under contract. There is a $6 HD Enabling Fee added to this Price)
> 
> HD Bronze Discontinued - New AT100+HD Pack -- *No Change*
> HD Silver Discontinued - New AT200+HD Pack -- *$3 Increase*
> HD Gold Discontinued - New AT250+ HD Pack -- *$3 Increase*
> HD Platinum Discontinued. - New AEP + HD Pack -- *$10 Increase!!!!!*
> 
> Premium Packages
> 
> HBO The Works *No Change *
> Showtime Unlimited *$1 Increase*
> Cinemax (Multi-Max) *$1 Increase*
> Starz *$1 Increase*
> Playboy *No Change *
> 
> Any 2 Premium Packages Or 1 premium package & Playboy -- *$0.99 Decrease *
> Any 3 Premium Packages Or 2 premium packages & Playboy -- *$0.01 Increase*
> Any 4 Premium Packages Or 3 premium package & Playboy -- *$2.01 Increase*
> All 4 Premium Packages + Playboy -- *$2.99 Decrease *
> 
> History of Dish Network's Price Increases HERE
> 
> See ya
> Tony


Any price increase to the Multi-sports package? 411-430 something.


----------



## ehren

Well you knew having the NFL Network would be the reason the packages are going way up!


----------



## John W

HDMe said:


> Not sure what that is supposed to mean.


Divide and conquer working at its finest. A fellow customer seemingly happy that my bill is going up $10.


----------



## tnsprin

There is mentioned of some new ways to get a discount for some new package commitment. Anyone have details.


----------



## James Long

John W said:


> Divide and conquer working at its finest. A fellow customer seemingly happy that my bill is going up $10.


And yet you seem to have been happy to pay $15 for a group of channels non-Platinum subscribers have been paying $20 for. It seems that you also don't mind customers being charged more as long as _you_ are not the one being charged more.


----------



## John W

Gouge us while you can, Charlie----

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=verizon+expands+tv&btnG=Search+News


----------



## BillJ

WOW! $10 for Platinum HD? Unless they're planning to add a lot of HD content that seems high. 

I expected at least $3 but this will make me take another look at cable. Haven't seen their prices for next year yet but they were only a couple $ higher than E* last time I checked. Might be cheaper now.


----------



## John W

James Long said:


> And yet you seem to have been happy to pay $15 for a group of channels non-Platinum subscribers have been paying $20 for. It seems that you also don't mind customers being charged more as long as _you_ are not the one being charged more.


Damn, James, you too?Maybe I didn't fight for you all then, but, I didn't come on here and gloat about it.


----------



## SMosher

I have no problem with the rates going up. Charlie will bring new stuff to our living rooms soon.

Lets just make sure its the RSNs before baseball starts :smoking:


----------



## James Long

John W said:


> Damn, James, you too?Maybe I didn't fight for you all then, but, I didn't come on here and gloat about it.


I'm not gloating, but Platinum subscribers were those who would pay $99.99 plus extra for receivers and add-ons. Even Charlie seemed shocked when the low price was announced on the Chat. These are the customers who have decided they have the most to spend on TV - and are likely to be able to handle an increase more than a subscriber who is paying $59.99 or $79.99 per month. You were running under a 5% discount (not counting the other Platinum bonuses).


----------



## bobukcat

Well, I saw this right before activating my second 622 I just bought from Ebay and installed last night and I'm glad I did! I had planned on going to Platinum (Gold now) because the extra receiver fee and DVR fee being waved would make it a reasonable increase but I think I'll just stay with Gold and pay the fees now...  

I suppose these yearly increases are something we should expect and learn to live with, but I still don't like them.


----------



## James Long

Folks, be nice. This is still a family forum.


----------



## smendira

I'm one of those whiny HD Platinum customers, and I will now rant.

<rant>

I "upgraded" to HD Platinum from the AEP+HD+Voom+Locals package and I still had a price increase and a $50 receiver upgrade fee from my owned 6000 to a leased 211, and all I got was a couple more MPEG-4 channels and the right to lease a receiver that did not sound like a jet engine.

I, along with many others, went along with it because it's the only way we could get the new MPEG-4 HD channels, and all new HD channels would be in MPEG-4. It's the cost of being a customer.

My point is, there was no magic $5 "discount" for the price of HD Platinum. That was the advertised price for the package, and it was still an overall price increase ($2) from AEP+HD+Voom+Locals. Was it a smaller price increase than the other tiers? Yes. But I'm also sure many people evaluated the price difference and upgraded to that package because of it. And now the rug is being pulled out from underneath us with a 10% increase.

</rant>

I just hope we can get a few more HD channels because of this (January surprise maybe?). I'm hoping that a few or all of MHD/CinemaxHD/West Feeds/A&E/InHD/RSNs/Real HD PPV will be added in 2007. If they add 4-5 of these, I'll be happy enough to stop ranting about my price increase.

Also, I'm hoping that at some point they will make an affordable annual package like D* has that allows more than one leased HD DVR and AEP+HD. I'd pay for that if it were $1500/year (up to 1 dual HD tuner receiver) and $150/year per additional dual tuner HD receiver, up to 8 or so.


----------



## datwell

$10/mo. is just too much at one time! Period.

Verizon's FIOS has been available to me for some time but I stayed with E* - in part because I felt they offered a better value; however, my committment to E* will be completed in a few months and that will certainly be time for a fresh look. No kidding.

--Doug


----------



## Rondo1

HDMe said:


> I notice the most griping about the $10 increase for the "Everything" package customers.
> 
> Where were all those people last year when Dish was giving you a $5 discount for having the "Everything" pack?
> 
> All this past year, when everyone else was paying $20 more for the HD, the "Everything" people were only paying $15 more for the HD... and I didn't hear them all lining up to thank Dish for the $5 discount, but I hear them now lining up to complain that this was taken away.
> 
> Now they are just being asked to pay proportional to what the rest of us pay... which seems reasonable to me, and they got a whole year of lower proportional payments... but now the grip-fest starts at why they are being increased so much more.
> 
> How quickly people forget!


:nono2:

I didn't forget. I felt that getting a discount was a "thank you" for putting out so much money in the first place by buying EVERYTHING AVAILABLE. So thats why I'm pissed. The more you buy the bigger the discount - its fair and an ongoing practice in many many industries. What package we all have was a CHOICE that each of us made based on whatever reasons. I myself wanted access to everything just in case I or family members or friends want to watch something that I don't typically watch. So I chose to pay much more than others to get everything. In return Dish gave me a discount for doing that. Those that chose a lesser package - in the end - PAID LESS THAN I DID. So yeah - I'm pissed. $10 is one big ass jump. What this makes me do now is to stop and re-examine what I'm forking out every month for TV programming that to be honest - I dont watch a vast majority of the channels. Dish has made a change thats making me now stop to look at the next level down to see if 1) it makes sense to lose whatever channels that I may lose and 2) if the discount (from what I'm going to be paying soon) is worth it. Stupid Dish. You don't penalize your best customers. I know its not this easy, but why not just add $5 to all tiers and leave it at that? I'm guessing there was a business reason to break it up the way that they did but still we all know that a $10 jump in this industry is HUGE. That's $120 a year more. That's 3-4 months of the Dish 60 pak. Yeah this sucks and it has nothing to do with complaining about my discount vs. yours. It's that my cost of the EVERYTHING PACK which is already much higher than the other packages just jumped a whopping $120 a year VS those of you that pay for a smaller package from $36 to $60 a year.


----------



## jrb531

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Yep no more Plat pack for me. It looks like I will pass on the Extra 7.00 increase , since I can't escape the 3.00 part of the price increase,and downgrade to top 180/250 + hd, or possibly the top 200 + hd . I won't escape the dvr fees but I will escape some of the price increase. I will also give all my movie money to either Blockbuster or NEtflix since Dish wants to be the New "Cable pig".


If you have a local Blockbuster you would be nuts to subscribe to any form of movie channel in any form IMHO.

With the Blockbuster service you pay $17.99 a month and they send you an average of 10 movies a month in the mail (more or less depending on how fast you watch them) and what is so sweet about it is that you have the option of how you return the movies. You can drop them in the mail or bring then to your local Blockbuster store and "trade" them for any movie in the store immediately so you can get about 20+ movies a month for about the same price of ONE pay TV movie channel.

Now add to the fact that you can get just released movies at Blockbuster instead of the 1-3 month old stuff Pay TV offers and you even get a coupon once a month for an additional free movie or Video game rental.

Now Netflix is also good but IMHO they simply cannot beat the fact that you can return the movies to Blockbuster to get a free rental on the spot as Netflix does not have local stores... if you do not have a local Blockbuster then the point is moot.

Why would I want to pay all this extra $$$ to watch older new movies when I can pay about the same and see just released stuff?

-JB


----------



## jrb531

Just a side note... the very first company that offers me a choice of selecting "only" the channels I want with a price for each is the company that will get my $$$'s. While this company may not exist now... eventually one will pop up and they will get a customer for life!

I only watch 10 channels and even if each channel cost me $5 each I would still save a ton of $$$!

-JB


----------



## stuart628

John W said:


> Gouge us while you can, Charlie----
> 
> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=verizon+expands+tv&btnG=Search+News


 Fios just raised their rates 8%.


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> And yet you seem to have been happy to pay $15 for a group of channels non-Platinum subscribers have been paying $20 for. It seems that you also don't mind customers being charged more as long as _you_ are not the one being charged more.


This is the same old line about why it's best for everyone to be "forced" to take channels they do not want because it then keeps the prices down for those who are on a channel count crusade.

You want a zillion channels then "you" pay for them. Any discount Dish gives those who subscribe to more channels comes off the backs of the masses by making everyone else subsidise your channels.

All this could be fixed forever if they would just group "all" channels into price catagories and let us select our own packages or channels. Since Dish would require a "minimim purchase" before they would provide service they would not lose any $$$.... the losers, of course, would be those who feel they need 500 channels and would have to actually pay their own way and the progeammers who keep adding more and more crap channels and force us to take them.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

stuart628 said:


> Fios just raised their rates 8%.


This is not a distributor (Dish, DTV, Cable, FIOS) issue but a programmer issue!

The programmers are "forcing" more and more channels on us and the distributors have to pass on the cost. Every 10 zillion dollar contract a sports figure is paid comes from the ESPN revenue that "everyone" is forced to pay because we cannot say.... "enough is enough" and cancel ESPN!

Competition for over 100 years has proven to keep costs down and while we have "distributor" competition.... the real issue is the utter lack of any form of competition on the programmers who provide "all" the content to the distributors.

Until we can call up our distributors and pick and choose channels based on content and price, the programmers will continue business as usual and raise prices every year because they can and there is NOTHING we can do to stop them...

Our freedom of choice in America in '06

Pay TV - YES
Pay TV - NO

Is this an acceptable choice to you?

-JB


----------



## robert koerner

I always list the channels I watch and compare them to the channels I'd watch at the same price point from another company.

It doesn't matter to me if any company calls the 12 channels I record from as top 60, top 80, or top 100.

This weekend, I'll be learning how to use the recording feature on my new HD and SD TV receiver that plugs into my 3200+XP computer. Its antique technology but seems to work fine for recording and playback of HDTV.

Good ole QWorst just jacked up my DSL service from 24.95 to 44.95. If I commit to two years of service, they'll drop it to 32.95.

Think I might just record about 100 hours of Blues Music onto my oldest computer that I use for ham radio, and turn that into my in-house FM station, and drop DSL.

I expect that both sat companies will be eagerly trying to increase their revenue stream in light of the plunging prices for home HDTV.

Bob


----------



## Mike D-CO5

jrb531 said:


> If you have a local Blockbuster you would be nuts to subscribe to any form of movie channel in any form IMHO.
> 
> With the Blockbuster service you pay $17.99 a month and they send you an average of 10 movies a month in the mail (more or less depending on how fast you watch them) and what is so sweet about it is that you have the option of how you return the movies. You can drop them in the mail or bring then to your local Blockbuster store and "trade" them for any movie in the store immediately so you can get about 20+ movies a month for about the same price of ONE pay TV movie channel.
> 
> Now add to the fact that you can get just released movies at Blockbuster instead of the 1-3 month old stuff Pay TV offers and you even get a coupon once a month for an additional free movie or Video game rental.
> 
> Now Netflix is also good but IMHO they simply cannot beat the fact that you can return the movies to Blockbuster to get a free rental on the spot as Netflix does not have local stores... if you do not have a local Blockbuster then the point is moot.
> 
> Why would I want to pay all this extra $$$ to watch older new movies when I can pay about the same and see just released stuff?
> 
> -JB


 I have in the past tried both blockbuster and Netflix when I downgraded my programming to just a basic pack with hd to try it. I have never had both Dish Plat pack and blockbuster or netflix at the same time. I will now GO permanetly with Blockbuster and I have downgraded to just top 120 with hd pack and locals.

I have been AEP sub for most of the 6 years it has existed. I was a Plat pack for this last year and I have subbed to premium channels since I went with Dish 1/18/97. I will no longer be a Premium channel subscriber with Dish ever again. THis $10.00 increase for the Plat pack or AEP with hd is outrageous. I can not believe that Dish thinks they can get away with this by repackaging their programming. I already paid for 2 -622 dvrs out of pocket last year on top of the 942 and the 921 the years before. Paid a thousand for that p.o.s. 921 receiver.

I felt like the 5.00 discount was a reward for subbing to EVERYTHING. It made the plat pack a good value. Eliminate the $5.00 discount and add that to the $5.00 increase in AEP and you have $10.00 to much in my book. Now all the Dish fees added in to punish you if you try to downgrade to a lower pack with an hd receiver is ridiculous. THese fees are pure greed on Dish's part.

THe hd enabeling fee PER HD RECEIVER if you try to go without hd pack. OR if you want to watch just ota digital stations without hd pack. THis is outrageous to make people pay to watch what they get ota for free with their own antenna.

The DVR fee PER RECEIVER if you try to sub to a lower pack . This should be per account not PER receiver. THis is so cable like in nature. Directv doesn't do this why should the "low cost leader" (and I use that term loosely) do that?

THe yearly increases with DISH because of ESPN and other networks additions is one thing but the extra FEES they add to punish you for trying to downgrade your programming is to much. They make it harder and harder to stay with them. I hope the next time DISH trys to knock Cable I hope they sue the sh*t out of them. They are so hypocritical in their advertising. When have you ever heard of Cable hiking their prices by $10.00 in one year?

Dish you are pricing your selves right out of the market with this $10.00 increase. I will now SAVE myself the $50.00 extra a month, even with the damn fees added with DISH and use it towards blockbuster. I will still come out cheaper.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Seems to me there are two camps...

1. People complaining about price increases in general.
2. People specifically complaining about the "Everything" pack increase.

I don't see nearly as many people as I thought I would complaining about the general price increases, though there are some. I see more people complaining that their "Everything" extra $5 discount has been discontinued.

This is why Dish didn't give free previews of the MPEG4 channels to MPEG2 customers... because as soon as the freeview ends, people complain "why did Dish take that away"... Dish gave folks in the "Everything" pack a whole year of $5 lower bills (probably by accident based on Charlie's reaction during the chat where prices were announced back in Feb)... and I don't remember 1 single person starting a thread and posting how thankful they were to Dish for that $5 extra discount on the "Everything" pack... but now are very quick to jump now that the discount has been removed and they are just being asked to pay the same amount as everyone else.

Frankly, I am amazed how few people have complained in general when compared to the very specific complaints about the "Everything" increase next year.

Although I will note of course that everyone expects more channels with a price increase... failing to take into account the new channels that were added all during the year (SD and HD) with no price increases at those times... not to mention general cost-of-living increases and the like.

Everyone seems to want to be paid $30+ an hour, and wants minimum wage to be $10+ an hour, but still wants to eat from the dollar menu and think somehow their salary increases don't affect other costs down the line.


----------



## John W

Well, HDMe, I'm paying about $145 (soon to be $155) a month, but, when the smoke clears it will probably be $0 a month-at least to E. Not including Full Court and PPVs which I'll also obviously be getting from someone else.


----------



## Hound

The HD price increases are OK if the HD programming is improved. In my county, Mercer, in NJ, Comcast offers YES HD, SNY HD, Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia HD, MSG HD, FSNY HD, NBA TV HD and INHD (includes Versus HD). None of these channels are offered by Dish.

Comcast does not serve my community, but it serves all the adjoining communities.
My community is served by a small cable system, Patriot Media that has announced
it is for sale and there are rumors Comcast will buy it. Verizon Fios TV was just recently approved to provide statewide service in NJ. I have signed up for Fios
Internet and it will be installed on 12/30. Fios TV will be available in my community in the first quarter of 2007. Fios TV is offering Comcast Sportsnet HD, YES HD
and SNY HD, which are not on Dish. 

I have been with Dish for about 4 years. I originally signed up with Dish so that
I could get the MLB EI and NBA packages, because they were not available on
local cable. I got my 61" HD television in February 2004 and realized that I could
not drop cable because Dish did not offer local channels in HD. But then I found out about OTA and discovered OTA was better than cable locals in HD. But cable added YES HD and INHD, then this summer SNY HD, so I had to keep cable. Now that Fios TV has Comcast Sportsnet HD, YES HD and SNY HD, I am almost certain to drop
Dish in 2007. If Comcast were to acquire my local cable company, I will most
likely go to Comcast for Comcast Sportsnet HD, YES HD, SNY HD, MSG HD, FSNY HD,
NBA TV HD, INHD and the new Comcast Versus/Golf HD channel. Local HD channels are all available OTA from both Phila and NY in my area. Do not need a provider for HD locals. Both Comcast and Verizon Fios offer ESPN HD, ESPN 2 HD and HBO HD.
All the other HD channels from any of the providers, including Dish, are generally
for surfing which many people like myself do not have the time. 

My TV viewing habits are recording OTA 12 network shows per week, ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS, recording HBO sunday night in HD (need a pay provider for this)
and watching sporting events in HD. 

I am tired of having two providers, cable and satellite. I would like one stop shopping so to speak. I do not want to switch to cable to get RSN sports. Dish needs to make drastic improvements to the HD lineup including HD RSNs to justify the price increase. Having 250 SD channels and HD surfing channels is generally useless to households that have had HD for three years and own multiple HD televisions. The WOW factor of HD surfing wears off very fast.


----------



## koralis

> This is why Dish didn't give free previews of the MPEG4 channels to MPEG2 customers...


Actually, they did. FoodHD was on the free preview channels a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## jrb531

I am very close to dropping to the lowest tier of service. There are only 2 channels that I watch in the 120 pack that have been keeping me there and it's getting harder and harder to justify it. Considering the $20 cost, quality HD programming is the utter pits as discussed to death in another thread.

HDnet and Discovery are about the only two I watch. I love the content of TNT but the stretched screen is the pits.

Dish has me for 11 more months per contract. If things do not improve I will sadly drop them for local cable or FIOS so I can get my internet from the same company.

I hate to say it but after awhile the "gee-wiz" factor for High Def wears off when the programming content sucks. Yes there are a few HD gems but, IMHO, not $20 a month worth.

Thousands of movies filmed in 35mm over the past decades and look at the crap we have to view.

-JB


----------



## Paul Secic

datwell said:


> $10/mo. is just too much at one time! Period.
> 
> Verizon's FIOS has been available to me for some time but I stayed with E* - in part because I felt they offered a better value; however, my committment to E* will be completed in a few months and that will certainly be time for a fresh look. No kidding.
> 
> --Doug


AT&T has introduced FIOS in 4 cities here in CA. 100 channels cost $44.94, 300 channels cost $99.00.


----------



## Skeeterman

I don't take rocket scientists to figure out 'Ole Charlie. He's a very smart individual when it come to pocketing your money.

Remember, the fine he had or has to pay the Affiliate Association... 100 million.
Now that he claims to have 12.46 million subscribers, and going to increase each one about $3.00 per month. Let me get my pencil sharpen... hum!.. 12.46 x $3.00 = 373.8 million dollars a month. Not bad for a hard day's work... He's going to pay that fine off in 12 days...


----------



## Chris Freeland

tnsprin said:


> There is mentioned of some new ways to get a discount for some new package commitment. Anyone have details.


Yes, it will be the AT200 Dish DVR Advantage pack that will include AT200 w/locals, DPP, the DVR fee for 1 DVR, all for $49.99/mo for both new and current customers who agree to CCAP and a 18/mo comitment. If you do the math (AT200 @ $42.99 + locals @ $5.00 = $47.99), you will see that with this package, the DVR service for 1 DVR comes to $2/mo, a savings of $3.98/mo. Also if you compare this with the current AT120 w/locals @ $44.99/mo + dvr service @ $5.98/mo = $50.97/mo, if you switch to this plan on Feb 1, you will actually get a $0.99 rate decrease. I also assume that their will also be a AT250 Dish DVR Advantage pack for $59.99/mo, however I have not seen anything yet to confirm this.

It appears this rate is only for 1 DVR on your account and additional DVR's will still be a $5.98/mo service fee for each additional unit.


----------



## joblo

Skeeterman said:


> Remember, the fine he had or has to pay the Affiliate Association... 100 million


Uh, no, that was part of a settlement that was nullified by the injunction, so he doesn't have to pay that at all.

And anyway, that figure was based on the acquisition costs to replace the projected lost subs with new ones. Monthly fee increases don't really factor into that equation.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

koralis said:


> Actually, they did. FoodHD was on the free preview channels a couple of weeks ago.


I was referring to back when they originally launched the MPEG4 stuff... a lot of people complained that Dish should have given them a 6-month free preview to entice them to upgrade... but many of us guessed correctly that if Dish did that, then took them away after the preview then people would complain "why did you take away my channels"... which is why I mentioned it in this thread, since a similar thing is now happening as folks are complaining that they are not going to continue to get their $5 discount that they had been getting this year.

Dish gives a freebie/discount out to customers for a limited time... and they complain about it later. Go figure.


----------



## Geronimo

Link said:


> They need to add some things to the Top 120 (or 200 whatever now) to justify raising it $3.00. E* is just as bad as cable now on price increases--maybe worse....I think the local cable here went up $1.00-2.00 on the basic package. But cable at least does move some of the channels on the digital tier down to the basic level. E* raises the rates and never offers subscribers anything in return.


I don't disagree eih that but I don't think they have any intention to do so.


----------



## John W

HDMe said:


> I was referring to back when they originally launched the MPEG4 stuff... a lot of people complained that Dish should have given them a 6-month free preview to entice them to upgrade... but many of us guessed correctly that if Dish did that, then took them away after the preview then people would complain "why did you take away my channels"... which is why I mentioned it in this thread, since a similar thing is now happening as folks are complaining that they are not going to continue to get their $5 discount that they had been getting this year.
> 
> Dish gives a freebie/discount out to customers for a limited time... and they complain about it later. Go figure.


I know this won't change YOUR view, but, just so another viewpoint gets posted on every page you post your side, here is what another poster said better than I could:

My point is, there was no magic $5 "discount" for the price of HD Platinum. That was the advertised price for the package, and it was still an overall price increase ($2) from AEP+HD+Voom+Locals. Was it a smaller price increase than the other tiers? Yes. But I'm also sure many people evaluated the price difference and upgraded to that package because of it. And now the rug is being pulled out from underneath us with a 10% increase.


----------



## Geronimo

Chris Freeland said:


> I also assume that their will also be a AT250 Dish DVR Advantage pack for $59.99/mo, however I have not seen anything yet to confirm this.


Logical but there was no mention of it.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

The $5.00 discount was added to the Plat pack to get people to upgrade to #1 the new hd pack and #2 an hd mpeg 4 receiver to see the pack. Other wise you wouldn't have upgraded. The 942 was a damn nice receiver with both sd and hd ota channels. It would have done everything the 622 does now if they hadn't have switched to mpeg 4 on their hd channels . 

I will say it again What cable or sat company do you know that has ever had a $10.00 increase in one year on their programming? This is the biggest increase I have ever heard of and if some people like to take it up the butt this next year and pay it , I say BEND OVER! I for one will not feed the Satellite Pig any longer and will sub to the lower pack to escape the price increases. 

If they keep going up on the hd pack I will drop hd all together. The silver lining in all this? I will save about $48.00 a month by not subbing to the soon to be defunct Plat pack . That is about $576.00 a year that I won't be giving to Dish any longer after 10 years with them on 1/18/97. 

So thankyou Charlie Ergen for saving me money and I'm sure Blockbuster will think you too , since they will be getting about $20.00 a month now to give me all my movies that I used to Pay you for .:grin:


----------



## KingJerky

TonyM said:


> I think he meant AEP (Americas Almost Everything Pack)


Correct, mistated DEP = Dish Everything Package

My bad.

I used to pay annually for the top 180 and they'd shave a month off my bill. They refused to do that when I picked up the vip622 and enrolled in the Gold tier HD Pak. I ended up going AEP (said it right that time) at that point to see if we'd actually use those movie channels. Now I'm going to be rewarded for that choice with a 10% hike in my bill.

Nice one Charlie. I guess someone has to pay for your stupid legal department's mistakes.

Preach it Mike D! Netflix is seeming like a nice option to replace my movie channels.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

John W said:


> I know this won't change YOUR view, but, just so another viewpoint gets posted on every page you post your side, here is what another poster said better than I could:


It isn't like I am in control of price increases or anything... so why specifically am I the target just because I'm thinking rationally. Again, I point out that I saw absolutely no posts about how great Dish was for offering the "Everything" Pack all this year at $5 less for the HD than all the other tiers... not one person felt like saying "Thank you Charlie"... but people are ready to pounce now that the prices are going to line up more fairly to the rest of the customers.

Lots of people jump on the "why do new customers get better deals" bandwagon... so let me ask... why should the "Everything" package customers pay $15 for HD when the rest of us pay $20 for the exact same HD channels... in fact, below the "Gold" level those customers are paying the $20 for HD but not getting National Geographic HD in their packages... so just why should the "Everything" package be discounted lower than what the rest of us pay for those same HD?

Discounts for buying more channels... sure... discounts for the bundled premiums... cool there too... but discount on the same stuff the other packages get? That was really just a bonus carrot Dish offered this year to help give incentive for folks to upgrade. I suspect that it may also have been a mistake, but the marketing folks ran with the price before the bean-counters could stop it... and once the packages were advertised they had to honor the prices. I betcha they never really meant to give that $5 cheaper in the first place.



John W said:


> My point is, there was no magic $5 "discount" for the price of HD Platinum. That was the advertised price for the package, and it was still an overall price increase ($2) from AEP+HD+Voom+Locals. Was it a smaller price increase than the other tiers? Yes. But I'm also sure many people evaluated the price difference and upgraded to that package because of it. And now the rug is being pulled out from underneath us with a 10% increase.


My only comment to this quote... and I already saw it on the previous page when the original poster wrote it... is how is this "pulling the rug" out from under anyone? The only price-guarantee Dish had was on the DishFamily and AT60 packages... they guaranteed those locked until 2008, and they are making good on that promise. Dish never promised any of the other package prices would remain that way for any period of time to the best of my knowledge.

Like I keep saying... there's two angles here. I find it highly interesting that there are not a whole lot of complaints about the general price increase... just the loss of the special discount. So, apparently all the "Everything" package customers think it is ok for the rest to pay more than they do for the exact same set of HD channels.

I don't get that at all... it's fine for us to pay $20 for HD but you expect to pay $15 for it... fine, expectations and wishes are cool... but to demand and complain about not getting it, that really confuses me.

Ultimately, as I often say... Satellite TV is very much a luxury. IF the new prices are too much, vote with your wallet and drop to a lower tier OR cancel altogether. If you like the entertainment value for the money, then stay onboard.

Local sporting events cost $20+ per person entering the door, not counting parking... for just one event! So honestly, my TV budget is not being strained at all here. I'd love a lower bill for sure... but it is not even close to being out of hand to be worth complaining about.


----------



## John W

HDMe said:


> I find it highly interesting that there are not a whole lot of complaints about the general price increase... just the loss of the special discount. So, apparently all the "Everything" package customers think it is ok for the rest to pay more than they do for the exact same set of HD channels.


I really think the level of complaining is-as you should expect-in proportion to the actual increase that will be happening.A $10 increase at one time to a package is rare if not totally unprecedented.So, thats why I think you are seeing the higher volume of complaints about that particular increase.


----------



## lamp525

joblo said:


> Wow, this is wonderful and exciting news!
> 
> But what are the 40 channels being added to Top 60, the 80 channels being added to Top 120, and the 70 channels are being added to Top 180?
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> Are they really adding channels??


----------



## midwave

I'm going to cancel DishNetwork after being a loyal customer for 3 years. I left cable for Dish because of poor quality of picture and the worst customer relations of any business I've dealt with...the cable company was swapped from TCI Cable to Time Warner Cable, and the customer service continued to stay bad, including the famous 'leave the phone off the hook' Saturdays.

.....DirecTV now has my local CW Network in the locals package, which through Dish I have to pay an extra $1.50 per month for CW11-NY to watch the network
.....the comparable Dish120/200 package to DirecTV Total Prime difference in price
.....2 DVR's FREE (1 automatically, 1 after mail-in $100 rebate)
.....1 fee for ALL the DVR's in the home
.....FREE Portable DVD Player for the kids!

Now my biggest dilemna is ...
Should I get Total Choice w/ locals and save app. $10 a month over Dish Network
OR
Should I get Total Choice Plus w/locals and pay the same as Dish Network, but get Starz Movie Pak or Showtime Movie Pak FREE for 1 year!?!?!?!

...and another reason to leave DishNetwork...after 3 years, BOTH the DVR and basic remote are acting up, and the button that doesn't want to work the most is the SAT key!


----------



## jrb531

lamp525 said:


> joblo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this is wonderful and exciting news!
> 
> But what are the 40 channels being added to Top 60, the 80 channels being added to Top 120, and the 70 channels are being added to Top 180?
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> Are they really adding channels??
> 
> 
> 
> Prob just more music channels that few listen to.
> 
> Oh how I wish they were only allowed to advertise "video" channels. It's getting borderline silly how they are getting close to having as many music channels as video channels.
> 
> -JB
Click to expand...


----------



## army1

and how many of those 250 t.v.channels are music? bye-bye dish


----------



## puck

Been with Dish for about 10 years. This is not one of the better years.... lose my distants, lose Philly... then get stuck w/Wilkes Barre monkey news channels... and by the way we're raising your price $5.

One word... FIOS!!! If you build it (in my neighborhood), I will switch.


----------



## culbjn

I upgraded to 2 622's and told the CSR that I wanted the Gold package. It is scheduled to be installed after January 1st. I saw where the Platinum was $30 more but I could save $12 on the DVR fees. So I have tried to contact them but none of my calls or e-mails have been returned. Now I find out we are going to have a price increase.

I have some questions.

If I go with the Platinum will I keep my $99 price for 18 months and no DVR fees?

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the AEP include Cinemax and Platinum doesn't. So that would include a $10 increase over Platinum $109 and no DVR fees. What would pricing be for AEP and HD with All 4 Premium packages?

Does the AEP drop the DVR fees with just the HD pack?


----------



## TNGTony

Cinemax is in both AEP and Platinum. Platinum is nothing more than AEP + HD Pack.

See ya


----------



## harsh

culbjn said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the AEP include Cinemax and Platinum doesn't.


To be painfully correct, Cinemax SD is included in both and Cinemax HD is not available in either.


----------



## harsh

TNGTony said:


> Platinum is nothing more than AEP + HD Pack.


Let's not count our chickens. Don't forget that there is still the old HD Pak lurking. Maybe they've decided that it is time to split the HD packages?


----------



## gqmagtutgic

So I guess the old HD pak $9.99 will remain unchanged for those of us who still have it.


----------



## Stalky14

John W said:


> Gouge us while you can, Charlie----
> 
> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=verizon+expands+tv&btnG=Search+News


I recently moved to an apartment with almost no balcony and lost my Dish Network in the process. I've been missing it because, although Cox Cable's package breakdown is possibly better than Dish (Theme packages in the digital tier... sort of), their DVR SUCKS ALL ASS compared to my old 501 and they have the gall to charge $10 a month for it. I was thinking of trying to get permission to install a dish that protrudes beyond my "exclusive area" BUT, my building just announced FIOS installation to be completed sometime next month. Between that and this increase: sorry Dish. It was a nice 9 year ride.

What happened to you, Dish? You used to be cool.


----------



## lamp525

jrb531 said:


> lamp525 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prob just more music channels that few listen to.
> 
> Oh how I wish they were only allowed to advertise "video" channels. It's getting borderline silly how they are getting close to having as many music channels as video channels.
> 
> -JB
> 
> 
> 
> where or when will someone know about new channels???
Click to expand...


----------



## rbonzer

I suppose this price change turns out good for me.

I used to have the Top 60+, but when I added HD, I had to pick the Silver package to keep FSN. Now it looks like the HD pack is back, so I can downgrade back to the lower priced Top 100+ and the HD pack and save some money.


----------



## grooves12

So, does this mean the HD pack now is back to including all HD channels, or only those HD channels for which you already are receiving the SD version??

What happens to channels like National Geo HD??


----------



## Jim5506

grooves12 said:


> So, does this mean the HD pack now is back to including all HD channels, or only those HD channels for which you already are receiving the SD version??
> 
> What happens to channels like National Geo HD??


Nothing, You don't get it unless you have the SD equivalent, equivalent of old Gold package.


----------



## finniganps

It will be interesting if the people at the top will lower their packages or just eat the increase.

Cable is still ahead in price increases. They went up 9% on average this year in my area. They seem to go up 6-9% EVERY year to 18 months for cable here.


----------



## jonsnow

TreeFarm said:


> OK, maybe we won't switch to Dish.
> 
> And it's time to push ala carte legislation.


I agree, but let me guess the replies from the package people and the religious tv and other x,y,z lobby groups.

1. Cable is a luxury. What they really mean is if you cannot afford cable you "poor" and live in a "village".

2. Ala carte raise prices. Not true, you might have to pay only 3 dollars a month to get the three channels you watch most. Do the math this is one of their biggest lies. Unless you watch tv 24 hours a day, most people can count their favorite, must have channels on one hand.

3. Compared to x company, dish networks price is cheap. Not really, after paying 56 dollars for a basic package you have a ton of fees and you may want to watch a movie on hbo, so you have to buy a seperate movie package...the list goes on


----------



## grooves12

jonsnow said:


> 2. Ala carte raise prices. Not true, you might have to pay only 3 dollars a month to get the three channels you watch most. Do the math this is one of their biggest lies. Unless you watch tv 24 hours a day, most people can count their favorite, must have channels on one hand.


I still fail to see how people can not understand the economics of bundling... there is no way if Pay TV went to an a la carte model that you would be paying anywhere NEAR $1 per channel. It would more likely be $5-$7 per channel.

Here is why.

Right now content providers get revenue from two sources. Carriage agreements and advertising.

Advertising revenues are based on amount of viewers a channel has.

Providers use bundling as a way to hijack deleviry companies (cable/satellite) into carrying channels that nobody would otherwise care about. But, since they are there people watch them, and thus the providers can sell advertising on them.

If cable/satellite were to go to an a la carte model... all of those second and third tier channels that don't have much of a following would die, and the providers would lose a TON of advertising revenue. They would need to make up this revenue somehow... and it would likely come in the form of increased costs for carriage agreements, and ultimately means you would pay the same price for 2 channels as you previously did for 20 in order for them to break even.

BUT, the networks do not want that to happen as it hinders their ability to develop new content and therefore more potential streams of revenue by selling advertising on it. So, they would likely make a la carte pricing MORE expensive than they are currently getting for current bundled channel packages in order to give people an incentive to stick with the bundled models.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

I have never, NEVER ,EVER seen a single $10.00 a month increase by either a Sat or Cable company till Dish decided to do this one on the AEP + hd pack customers. Leave it to Dish to be the first one in the business to do this. 

What everyone is failing to understand with this price increase is this. The whole reason why Dish came out with the Plat pack with a $5.00 hd discount was to get people to upgrade to a higher programming pack and to get them to upgrade to the hd vip receiver in mpeg4. How can Dish further the mpeg 4 transition by pulling the rug out from the Plat customers and remove the $ 5.00 discount and simultaneously hit them with a $5.00 price increase too? This is insane and pure greed on Charlie's part. 

How does Dish plan on upgrading the sd customers to the mpeg 4 receivers so they can reclaim the bandwith and futher the mpeg 4 transition by 2009 by doing these large price increases and hitting all their customers with bullsh*t fees like the hd enabeling fees PER RECEIVER or the Dvr fees PER RECEIVER if they try to downgrade or even sub to a lower priced pack ? LEts not forget the no phone line connected for $5.00 per dual tuner receiver.

I see the future for Dish is churn once the sd subs have to upgrade to the new mpeg 4 receivers. Dish is working against themselves with all these damn FEES and the high price increases coupled with no discount for subbing to AEP + hd pack. I believe that more and more people will churn if this scheme isn't rectified. DISH used to be the low cost leader next to Cable and Directv. That isn't true any longer. I can no longer recommend them to anyone I know , due to the single largest increase monthly I have ever heard of . 

Dish wake up before it is to late. You are pricing yourselves right out of the market for most subs . I love your sat service but I will not pay this $10.00 more monthly . I have drawn the line in the sand and I will simply downgrade each year if you continue to do insult your customer with these practices.


----------



## jrb531

grooves12 said:


> I still fail to see how people can not understand the economics of bundling... there is no way if Pay TV went to an a la carte model that you would be paying anywhere NEAR $1 per channel. It would more likely be $5-$7 per channel.
> 
> Here is why.
> 
> Right now content providers get revenue from two sources. Carriage agreements and advertising.
> 
> Advertising revenues are based on amount of viewers a channel has.
> 
> Providers use bundling as a way to hijack deleviry companies (cable/satellite) into carrying channels that nobody would otherwise care about. But, since they are there people watch them, and thus the providers can sell advertising on them.
> 
> If cable/satellite were to go to an a la carte model... all of those second and third tier channels that don't have much of a following would die, and the providers would lose a TON of advertising revenue. They would need to make up this revenue somehow... and it would likely come in the form of increased costs for carriage agreements, and ultimately means you would pay the same price for 2 channels as you previously did for 20 in order for them to break even.
> 
> BUT, the networks do not want that to happen as it hinders their ability to develop new content and therefore more potential streams of revenue by selling advertising on it. So, they would likely make a la carte pricing MORE expensive than they are currently getting for current bundled channel packages in order to give people an incentive to stick with the bundled models.


I fail to see how people cannot understand that the entire system seemed to work just fine with half the channels and half the cost. Each year they add channels and cost but keep the same basic three packages and year after year as the price goes up we are told how lucky we are to get all these channels so cheap!

Well charge me the stinkin $5 per channel and I'll pick the 5 I watch... pay $25 instead of $75 and save $50 a month!

Or a compromise... put all the channels in three price ranges and allow us to pick the channels we want with a minimum purchase requirement.

No? Of course no! You see then we could cancel the crap ESPN or any other channel who likes to spend "our" money.

Until we get control of paying for what we want when we want this will never end.

Can anyone out there tell me when this will stop? 5-10% increases every stinkin year till infinity? When we are all paying $500 a month with 1000 video and 1000 music channels playing the same old repeats of old TV shows and lame made for TV crap you will all do the math and tell us how cheap each channel is?????

I still can only watch one show at a time whether I have 10, 100, 1000 or 10,000 channels to choose from so it matters not what my selection is.... do the math based upon the hours you watch and you will see that the cost to watch "any" pay TV keeps going up and up and up with no end in view.

Eventually the ala-cart "boogie man" will no longer work.

That day is approaching faster than you think.

-JB


----------



## John W

JB-Maybe like the other future dinosaur-big oil-satellite is trying to make its killing now while it still makes sense?


----------



## minnow

Mike D-CO5 said:


> ... How can Dish further the mpeg 4 transition by pulling the rug out from the Plat customers and remove the $ 5.00 discount and simultaneously hit them with a $5.00 price increase too? This is insane and pure greed on Charlie's part.
> 
> How does Dish plan on upgrading the sd customers to the mpeg 4 receivers so they can reclaim the bandwith and futher the mpeg 4 transition by 2009..."


E* can easily upgrade all to the MPEG4 technology - - by forcing the subs to swap out the boxes. This will also allow E* to go to an all lease porgram. No one will own the boxes and E* can charge a monthly fee for each box forever. E* will throw in some PPV coupons to lessen the blow but by going to an all lease business model, E* will rake in millions of dollars a month in rental fee's.


----------



## ehren

Jim5506 said:


> Nothing, You don't get it unless you have the SD equivalent, equivalent of old Gold package.


what a crock.


----------



## Robert W

Count me as another who will be down grading. I currently have Plat HD with 3 receivers and one DVR and fully agree that there should be a discount for those of us that buy everything. However, I have found the quality of the programming to be 90% crap. Once the initial WOW factor of HD wears off and you realize that you are paying to be able to view the same things over and over again it becomes boring. The same holds true for HBO, Starz, Max, Showtime etc. An incredible lack of diverse programming. Netflix is a much better option than the movie channels.

If I can get HD with Top 100 + locals that's more than enough. As has been mentioned here Ala Carte would be great. Out of all these channels that I have now we only watch maybe 10 or 15 of them 99% of the time.


For those of us in rural areas with no OTA / Cable the satellite companies have us over a barrel if you want TV at all. I'm not sure Direct TV would be any different really. However I am starting to understand the mentality of the hackers. Maybe if these services were more affordable there would be less people trying to get it for free. Hmmmm....something to think about....

Think about it Dish, I understand economy and business but at some point there will be a backlash and your increases will turn to loss.


----------



## rid0617

midwave said:


> I'm going to cancel DishNetwork after being a loyal customer for 3 years. I left cable for Dish because of poor quality of picture and the worst customer relations of any business I've dealt with...the cable company was swapped from TCI Cable to Time Warner Cable, and the customer service continued to stay bad, including the famous 'leave the phone off the hook' Saturdays.
> 
> .....DirecTV now has my local CW Network in the locals package, which through Dish I have to pay an extra $1.50 per month for CW11-NY to watch the network
> .....the comparable Dish120/200 package to DirecTV Total Prime difference in price
> .....2 DVR's FREE (1 automatically, 1 after mail-in $100 rebate)
> .....1 fee for ALL the DVR's in the home
> .....FREE Portable DVD Player for the kids!
> 
> Now my biggest dilemna is ...
> Should I get Total Choice w/ locals and save app. $10 a month over Dish Network
> OR
> Should I get Total Choice Plus w/locals and pay the same as Dish Network, but get Starz Movie Pak or Showtime Movie Pak FREE for 1 year!?!?!?!
> 
> ...and another reason to leave DishNetwork...after 3 years, BOTH the DVR and basic remote are acting up, and the button that doesn't want to work the most is the SAT key!


With Directv all locals are provided for no extra charge. Only difference between total choice and total choice plus is the plus package has more kiddie oriented channels. I'm at the point I'm about to quit paying to watch TV. The prices are getting more and more ridiculous and we watch more and more commercials and this is coming from a loyal directv customer since 1995.


----------



## robert koerner

For some strange reason, I think Dish is better at maxing their revenue stream than anyone on this site.

Proclaiming that Dish's revenue stream will decrease, after increasing prices for some services, asserts that one's understanding and expertise with finance, economics, marketing, accountancy etc is better than what Dish employs.

Does than really make sense?

Do you really think you have a better grasp on what happens to Dish's Balance Sheet, Income Summary, and the Cash Flow that links the two, than Dish does?!

If you really are better at Dish than Dish is, you must be making a TON of $$$$$$$ shorting their stock.

Bob


----------



## Link

Over the years Dish has started charging customers for everything possible. Remember when they bragged about having no DVR fees? Then they decided they could make $6 more a month per DVR receiver-not account. 

Then next they decided they would force HD customers to pay for the VOOM channels and raised the package to $20 and not offer a $10 package any longer. Now they are raising rates $3.00 a month each year and not offering decent package discounts anymore to pay off fines they have incurred due to poor business management.

They had the big showdown with Lifetime last year and the Top 120 lost Lifetime Movie Network yet they still raised the packages $3.00. Directv did the same but somehow managed to keep Lifetime Movie Network in the basic package while also adding Lifetime Real Women. Dish acted like adding Oxygen made up for it but Directv already had been offering Oxygen for quite awhile......


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I wish all the folks who think the sky is falling would just go ahead and follow through on their promise to switch and be done with it. Every year we have a bunch of folks complain about price increases, even when every other provider is raising them too... and they all threaten to switch... but then the next year rolls around and the same folks complain again, and haven't switched.

Bottom bottom line as always is... if you feel you are getting your money's worth, stay and be happy! If you feel you are being charged too much, speak with your wallet and drop packages OR switch to another provider.

If you pay the bill, you are voting you are happy... and have no reason to complain about the price increase unless you act to do something about it.

I don't like price increases either... but almost every other aspect of my life has seen a price increase too... and I can't stop eating, drinking, breathing, living just because of it... and thus far no bits of the sky are falling on me.


----------



## Link

I feel like I get my money's worth on E* because I have the Top 60 package with locals for $34.99 and luckily that package won't be raising. I also still use a 721 receiver so I don't have to pay the DVR fee of $6.00 a month. Now if I had the Top 120 package going up $3.00 and had the $6.00 DVR fee to pay for and my bill was $53.99 or if I had more than one DVR to pay for I don't think that would be as good a value for my money.

I think the biggest gripe people have is they increase the packages by so much each year now. $1.00-2.00 wouldn't be so bad, but they raise it $3.00 from year to year and don't even add anything worth mentioning. 

I know there have been requests for stations like Hallmark to move down to the Top 120 and Hallmark Movie Channel to be added to the 180. E* can't seem to add other channels D* has like TV One, Logo, Lifetime Real Women, and some others.

There are additional premium channels like HBO Zone, three or four more Cinemax channels including Cinemax HD, Showtime Family, Next, and Women that they never get added.


----------



## minnow

The only way we'll ever see Al-a-Carte pricing is if Congress legislates it. Not only would the programmers fight it but the providers such as the sat. and cable companies as well. Al-a-Carte would be a tremendous hit to all of their bottom lines. I'll be most people don't watch more than say 20 channels a month and a lot less of that amount on a regular basis. Even at say $2.00 a month per channel, 90% of would still save a pile of money over what we are currently paying for and not watching. Of course Charlie would then institute a fee for each channel that E* offers but you decline to subscribe too. :lol:


----------



## Link

minnow said:


> The only way we'll ever see Al-a-Carte pricing is if Congress legislates it. Not only would the programmers fight it but the providers such as the sat. and cable companies as well. Al-a-Carte would be a tremendous hit to all of their bottom lines. I'll be most people don't watch more than say 20 channels a month and a lot less of that amount on a regular basis. Even at say $2.00 a month per channel, 90% of would still save a pile of money over what we are currently paying for and not watching. Of course Charlie would then institute a fee for each channel that E* offers but you decline to subscribe too. :lol:


I agree. I maybe watch 10 channels in addition to local stations. There are channels in the Top 120 I wouldn't mind watching sometimes but not enough to pay $10 more than what I do now and certainly not $13 with the upcoming price increase. Why is it that C-Band services offered channels or groups of channels a-la-carte but DBS can't?


----------



## Richard King

The problem with alacarte is the cable companies. Many of them still have several analog tiers that are available without a set top box. We probably get about 70 channels here without a box. While they can control the various tiers currently with filters at the pole, imagine the size of the filter box that would be required at the pole to do alacarte. Let's see, I want channels 2-17 for my locals, but I really don't need channel 6, the all day infomercial channel, or channel 9, the Mongolian language (Outer Mongolian) channel, so put a filter out there for those. I still want channel 27, 32, 45, and 65, so let them pass, but filter the rest. I just don't see that working without forcing the subs to "rent" a box from the CC which defeats the purpose of alacarte and the requirements for cable ready televisions that are still on the books.


----------



## TreeFarm

Richard King said:


> The problem with alacarte is the cable companies. Many of them still have several analog tiers that are available without a set top box. ................


Legislation can include caveats. Analog cable systems should be exempted for the very reasons you pointed out (which I snipped for brevity), but there is no reason not to require ala carte on digital systems. It is now *way* overdue.


----------



## Robert W

TreeFarm said:


> Legislation can include caveats. Analog cable systems should be exempted for the very reasons you pointed out (which I snipped for brevity), but there is no reason not to require ala carte on digital systems. It is now *way* overdue.


Here here! :righton:

The problem being lobbyists and congress. Big corporate monoliths tend to control the lives of this lemming society.

I for one would gladly pay what I am now to be able to receive the 20 or so channels that I do care about all in HD. I think that Ala Carte could easily be used to weed out what in all likelihood are channels that Dish and others would not carry if they weren't forced to. Bandwidth problems could all but vanish. But I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Richard King

Now THAT would give a GREAT advantage to the satellite guys. Look for massive defections from cable to satellite if that ever happened. That would be a great way for satellite to grow and pass cable as the major distribution system. The problem is that it would take legislation to force the issue and the cable companies would be screaming like crazy if this ever got going (or they would simply move everything to a digital tier and force a box on everyone).


----------



## lamp525

Link said:


> I feel like I get my money's worth on E* because I have the Top 60 package with locals for $34.99 and luckily that package won't be raising. I also still use a 721 receiver so I don't have to pay the DVR fee of $6.00 a month. Now if I had the Top 120 package going up $3.00 and had the $6.00 DVR fee to pay for and my bill was $53.99 or if I had more than one DVR to pay for I don't think that would be as good a value for my money.
> 
> I think the biggest gripe people have is they increase the packages by so much each year now. $1.00-2.00 wouldn't be so bad, but they raise it $3.00 from year to year and don't even add anything worth mentioning.
> 
> I know there have been requests for stations like Hallmark to move down to the Top 120 and Hallmark Movie Channel to be added to the 180. E* can't seem to add other channels D* has like TV One, Logo, Lifetime Real Women, and some others.
> 
> There are additional premium channels like HBO Zone, three or four more Cinemax channels including Cinemax HD, Showtime Family, Next, and Women that they never get added.


When will we know for sure what new channels are being added to the different packages..please no more music channels!!!!!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Link said:


> Why is it that C-Band services offered channels or groups of channels a-la-carte but DBS can't?


Every time someone asks this... I always ask in reply... Why are you not with C-band then?

If C-band is a better value for your money and lets you choose to pay only for channels that you want... and it would be cheaper for you to do so... then why are you not with them?

I always like the examples people come up with to say how a la carte would work because C-band is doing it... then they follow-up by giving a list of reasons why they don't want C-band.


----------



## James Long

C-Band works because of the nature of the business. DBS provides nearly all of their national channels from one satellite location. DBS providers are responsible for rebroadcasting the channels they carry specifically for reception by their, and only their customers. C-Band comes from many different satellites with uplinks intended for more than just the relative handful of C-Band customers.

C-Band "a la carte'" is just a little extra money for the provider. DBS relies on package subscribers to make the whole system worth running. True "a la carte" on DBS will lead to less popular channels not being added because every channel will have to pay it's own way. $150,000 per transponder / 12 channels per transponder is $12,500 per channel per month BEFORE paying for the rights to the program.


----------



## Link

lamp525 said:


> When will we know for sure what new channels are being added to the different packages..please no more music channels!!!!!


They are adding some music channels to the Top 60 (renamed Top 100) but that package isn't getting any price increase.

I think a lot of subs would be accept the increase better if they would move Hallmark to the Top 120 (Top 200) package. It also would help with marketing because I know people that haven't switched to E* because they didn't want to pay for the Top 180 in order to get Hallmark. Most cable companies and Directv offer it in their basic lineups.


----------



## midwave

rid0617 said:


> Only difference between total choice and total choice plus is the plus package has more kiddie oriented channels.


Not exactly...
NEW DirecTV customers get 1 year FREE of Starz OR Showtime movie packages.
Also, I miss National Geographic, The Science Channel and BET-Jazz.
There may be more children and family programing, but alot of educational programming is what I want anyways. 
There are kids in this house regularly, and i'm buying for all of us to enjoy.


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> Every time someone asks this... I always ask in reply... Why are you not with C-band then?
> 
> If C-band is a better value for your money and lets you choose to pay only for channels that you want... and it would be cheaper for you to do so... then why are you not with them?
> 
> I always like the examples people come up with to say how a la carte would work because C-band is doing it... then they follow-up by giving a list of reasons why they don't want C-band.


And once again it's because most people cannot have a BUD in their yard LOL.

The choice most people have in reality is status quo or no pay tv. This is the only choice we have and while we would like to drop to lower tiers of service, the programmers and distributors will set up the channels in such a way that they put just enough must have channels in the packages to make us take what we do not want.

As asked a 1000 times before... why can't I subscribe to the lowest tier and then pay $5 for the one channels I may want that is in their two or tier three?

Answer: because they do not have to offer this and this is why, sadly, congress has to step in and stop taking bribe $$$ from big business to screw the consumer over.

No one is asking anyone to lose $$$ but as I said before....

I can only watch one channel at a time and if they offer 10, 100, 1000 or 10,000 channels this does not change the fact that each hour of programming I do watch is going up far faster than the rate of inflation.

The system is set up to maximize the profit for big business on the backs of us. Their is no competition because we cannot drop expensive channels and go with less expensive channels. Until that day we have to swallow "anything" they give us or just say no to all pay tv.

If you all would stop measuring channels per $$$ and start measuring hours watched per $$$ you would see the real issue.

-JB


----------



## Steve Mehs

> (or they would simply move everything to a digital tier and force a box on everyone).


They should do that any how, in one week it will be 2007, there is no reason for analog cable to exist in 2007. Digital simulcast is nice, but it's not the answer, bandwidth is still being hogged by analog. Cable companies need to tell granny to rent a box or shove it. Those of us with $200+ cable bills are more important then granny who pays $40 for 70 channels of analog snow, our wants should be given higher priority, remove as much analog as possible, force everyone to rent a box, use the bandwidth to relieve compression on digital SD, then add as much HD as possible. Show the dish companies what it means to be a digital entertainment powerhouse in the 21st century. But that won't happen for a while.


----------



## Nick

Steve Mehs -- a man of letters who sums up the future of the cable biz in just a few words:

_"...tell granny to rent a box or shove it."_

Once again, Steve, you are my hero! :grin:

Merry Christmas to you and Mom.


----------



## Richard King

And your granny.


----------



## Slamminc11

Steve Mehs said:


> They should do that any how, in one week it will be 2007, there is no reason for analog cable to exist in 2007. Digital simulcast is nice, but it's not the answer, bandwidth is still being hogged by analog. Cable companies need to tell granny to rent a box or shove it. Those of us with $200+ cable bills are more important then granny who pays $40 for 70 channels of analog snow, our wants should be given higher priority, remove as much analog as possible, force everyone to rent a box, use the bandwidth to relieve compression on digital SD, then add as much HD as possible. Show the dish companies what it means to be a digital entertainment powerhouse in the 21st century. But that won't happen for a while.


Either spend more money on our stuff or "F" off????? That's not an answer. Nice! Real Nice! :nono2:  :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2:  :nono2: :nono2: :nono2:  :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2:  :nono: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2:  :nono2: :nono2:  :nono2: :nono: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2:


----------



## Steve Mehs

> Merry Christmas to you and Mom


Thank you, same to you, Sir.



> Either spend more money on our stuff or "F" off????? That's not an answer. Nice! Real Nice!


Exactly! I don't care if it's nice or not. It's not about being nice, it's about compteting better with the competition.


----------



## lamp525

Link said:


> They are adding some music channels to the Top 60 (renamed Top 100) but that package isn't getting any price increase.
> 
> I think a lot of subs would be accept the increase better if they would move Hallmark to the Top 120 (Top 200) package. It also would help with marketing because I know people that haven't switched to E* because they didn't want to pay for the Top 180 in order to get Hallmark. Most cable companies and Directv offer it in their basic lineups.


Some one should know something soon about new channels added to the different packages..


----------



## Chris Freeland

lamp525 said:


> Some one should know something soon about new channels added to the different packages..


If, and that is a BIG IF, their are any new channel additions in the new year, it will have nothing to do with the new package names, except for the addition of the 32 Dish CD channels to AT60/100 and AT60/100 Plus. As Tony and others have pointed out, their are already more then 200 channels in AT120/200 and more then 250 channels in AT180/250 now. I would not get your hopes up for a bunch of new SD channels in AT200 or AT250, I suspect any new channels that may or may not be added in 07 will be in the HD pack, more HD locals and likley a few more International channels. In other words new channels that will encourage more people add the $20/mo HD pack or International $.


----------



## cdoyle

I joined up with Dish about 3 years ago, what got me to sign up were the commercials on TV from Dish. Making fun of the cable companies, and all the price increases you see with Cable, and don't see with Dish. 

So now here we are 3 years later, and this is the 2nd increase (maybe 3rd)?
I'm getting really tired of cable and sat doing this to their customers. 

About the only thing that is keeping with Dish right now is the DVR fee free 508 I have (still no NBR like they promised).


----------



## jonsnow

If dish can't switch to ala carte because of congress, then why can't they offer more than three basic AT packages to reduce prices for the consumer to a reasonable price like say around 10-19 dollars a month, about as much as my electric bill which I can control using fluorescent bulbs? As of now the consumer is held hostage to the point where even educational programing is off limits to la carte and are forced to look elsewhere, like Netflicks for better deals than even a basic movie service like hbo bundle with a now soon to be overpriced AT60 package. All bundling does is raise prices and acts as sort of a welfare program for unwatchable "niche" channels. It's so 20th century and uncompetitive to boot that it's not even funny anymore.


----------



## Slamminc11

jonsnow said:


> If dish can't switch to ala carte because of congress, then why can't they offer more than three basic AT packages to reduce prices for the consumer to a reasonable price like say around 10-19 dollars a month, about as much as my electric bill which I can control using fluorescent bulbs? As of now the consumer is held hostage to the point where even educational programing is off limits to la carte and are forced to look elsewhere, like Netflicks for better deals than even a basic movie service like hbo bundle with a now soon to be overpriced AT60 package. All bundling does is raise prices and acts as sort of a welfare program for unwatchable "niche" channels. It's so 20th century and uncompetitive to boot that it's not even funny anymore.


Well, if you would look around, Dish has this package that is called DishFamily, it is $19.99. There are actually five different packages not three.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

If it is so bad and pains you so... then why not cancel your cable/catellite service?

If something was making me that mad/pain/whatever then the last thing I would do is continue to pay and receive it.


----------



## AVJohnnie

TNGTony said:


> America's Top 120 renamed >> America's Top 200 *$3 increase*
> America's Top 180 renamed >> America's Top 250 *$3 increase*
> America's Everything Pack -This package includes the DVR service fee. *$5 increase*
> 
> HD Pack Package *No Change *
> HD Silver Discontinued - New AT200+HD Pack -- *$3 Increase*
> HD Gold Discontinued - New AT250+ HD Pack -- *$3 Increase*
> HD Platinum Discontinued. - New AEP + HD Pack -- *$10 Increase!!!!!*


Am I missing something here or are the top tier subscribers (AEP+HD) simply being singled out for an additional $5.00 per month funds grab?


----------



## minnow

No your not missing a thing. Isn't it nice to be special and be singled out for extra attention ? :lol: :lol:


----------



## jrb531

Slamminc11 said:


> Well, if you would look around, Dish has this package that is called DishFamily, it is $19.99. There are actually five different packages not three.


The Family Package was nothing more that a way to answer the call for ala-cart by using family content as an excuse.

Funny how for years we were told that they were unable to offer any other packages due to programmer restrictions and suddenly these restrictions were lifted almost overnight to allow a "family" package thus removing a prime reason for people calling for ala-cart.

The distributors and programmers are terrified of ala-cart! They know that once you let the genie out of the bottle the entire pay tv landscape will be forever changed.

Think about it... If we had the ability to cancel any channel we want... well think of the power we would have? Channel has crap content... cancel! Channel raising their prices too much... cancel!

What would happen to ESPN, for example, if we could elect to save $5 a month by cancelling it?

My prediction:

1. About a third of the current subscribers would immediately drop ESPN as they never watched it to begin with

2. ESPN would be forced to lower prices to try and keep the remaining subscribers

3. Future NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL etc... contracts would drop by half

4. ESPN would offer more repeats and other low-cost "filler" programming - Professional darts, bowling and other "cheap" sports related content

5. Sports contracts would drop like a rock

6. Free TV networks would now be able to afford to once again bid for coverage contracts as ESPN's deep pockets would not be able to automatically outbid everyone

7. Eventually ESPN would level out with about half their current subscribers

8. ESPN might then start to offer "pay-per-view" events to help increase revenue

We would lose a ton of the filler crap stations. The fact that so many people now have DVR's mean that we no longer need to have 20 stations all showing the same old repeats when we could just record what we want.

You know I used to make fun of this up and coming system of paying Apple Itunes $1 or $2 for a single episode of a TV show.... what a rip? Right? Right?

Well if I only watch a few shows it would actually be cheaper to pay for single episodes! Those 22 shows per season would cost me $44 ($2 per episode) so over the course of an entire season it would actually be cheaper to just pay for what I watch.

Now, of course, the couch potatoes who are glued to their TV set 24/7 hate this thought. Having to pay for what you watch scares the crap out of them.

Those who watch TV to excess think Pay TV is cheap... Those who watch very little TV think Pay TV is expensive. Why?

Well because those who watch very little TV subsidize the viewing habits of the couch potatoes and no matter how you try and spin it... ala-cart would mean a cheaper bill for those who watch less TV and a more expensive bill for those who watch alot of TV. Is this not the way is should be?

-JB


----------



## Slamminc11

jrb531 said:


> The Family Package was nothing more that a way to answer the call for ala-cart by using family content as an excuse.
> 
> Funny how for years we were told that they were unable to offer any other packages due to programmer restrictions and suddenly these restrictions were lifted almost overnight to allow a "family" package thus removing a prime reason for people calling for ala-cart....


When Dish started 10+ years ago, they had a package for $19.99 with about the same amount of channels as Dish Family has now, and that package is also $19.99. Do you honestly think it was overnite? Give me a break. My guess is the people at Dish that had to re-negotiate those contracts with the channels on Dish Family also would agree that it wasn't "overnite", and had to do some major work to get it done.
I'm sure you would think that there are like three people signed up for Dish Family but my guess is that there is a pretty large chunk of families who actually subscribe to the package.


----------



## jrb531

Slamminc11 said:


> When Dish started 10+ years ago, they had a package for $19.99 with about the same amount of channels as Dish Family has now, and that package is also $19.99. Do you honestly think it was overnite? Give me a break. My guess is the people at Dish that had to re-negotiate those contracts with the channels on Dish Family also would agree that it wasn't "overnite", and had to do some major work to get it done.
> I'm sure you would think that there are like three people signed up for Dish Family but my guess is that there is a pretty large chunk of families who actually subscribe to the package.


And why did Dish do away with that $19.95 package and only have it resurface when "serious" pressure was being put on congress to allow ala-cart so families could reject anti-familiy programming? Coincidence? I think not!

If Dish and the programmers are such advocates of allowing a low-price package then why the rejection toward allowing HD to be added to the Family Pack? Sure they like to say that some HD content is not family suitable but we know the real reason.... Just enough "family friendly" content was placed in the $20 tier to shut up the ala-cart people who were using content as the issue as well as allow Dish to advertise a $20 low ball price point when, in reality, few people subscribe to the $20 pack as it is missing some must have channels.

I'll ask this also... why can't Dish have other "types" of low price packages?

How about a non-sports package?

Don't get me wrong... I know what Dish "used" to offer. Heck they used to allow you to add individual channels but what about now?

Fact is that "if" Dish has some form of contracts with the programmers that preclude offering other packages they sure as heck evaporated pretty darn fast to allow the Family Package to arrive just as stream was building toward ala-cart due to content issues.

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon

AVJohnnie said:


> Am I missing something here or are the top tier subscribers (AEP+HD) simply being singled out for an additional $5.00 per month funds grab?


In order to answer that question, one also has to ask why those same subsribers were "singled out" last year to receive an extra $5 off their bills.

People were ok being "special" and "singled out" when they were getting an extra good deal... but now don't want to pay the same as the rest of us because they still think they are "special".


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jrb531 said:


> You know I used to make fun of this up and coming system of paying Apple Itunes $1 or $2 for a single episode of a TV show.... what a rip? Right? Right?
> 
> Well if I only watch a few shows it would actually be cheaper to pay for single episodes! Those 22 shows per season would cost me $44 ($2 per episode) so over the course of an entire season it would actually be cheaper to just pay for what I watch.


You are, of course, missing how they are able to offer these downloads at $1-$2 per episode... it is because they already got money from the original broadcast and advertisers. IF these episodes were exclusively available for download (with no other source of revenue) then I can assure you they would want much more than $1-$2 per episode.

This is also why a la cart will never produce the results some think it will (lower bills)... because a lot of channels (the ones you claim are better than ESPN and you only want to watch them) would not be able to stay in business... and the remaining channels would only stay in business by raising their rates significantly... so in the end we would end up paying the same bills for less channels.

Why some fail to see this is beyond me... and I swore I wouldn't get sucked into the deja vu a la carte conversation again, but I failed on my self-promise.


----------



## Slamminc11

jrb531 said:


> And why did Dish do away with that $19.95 package and only have it resurface when "serious" pressure was being put on congress to allow ala-cart so families could reject anti-familiy programming? Coincidence? I think not!...


Well since you apperantly don't know what is what, That package is still around, they just kept adding programming to it. It's latest name is AT60 and about to become AT100. I would keep going, but don't want to confuse you any longer.


----------



## juan ellitinez

HDMe said:


> You are, of course, missing how they are able to offer these downloads at $1-$2 per episode... it is because they already got money from the original broadcast and advertisers. IF these episodes were exclusively available for download (with no other source of revenue) then I can assure you they would want much more than $1-$2 per episode.
> 
> This is also why a la cart will never produce the results some think it will (lower bills)... because a lot of channels (the ones you claim are better than ESPN and you only want to watch them) would not be able to stay in business... and the remaining channels would only stay in business by raising their rates significantly... so in the end we would end up paying the same bills for less channels.
> 
> Why some fail to see this is beyond me... and I swore I wouldn't get sucked into the deja vu a la carte conversation again, but I failed on my self-promise.


 Not to mention if alacart ever took place there would be a "service delivery fee" or some other such nonsence to cover the cost of operating satellites , cable lines etc. that is already bundled into todays basic rates


----------



## John W

HDMe said:


> In order to answer that question, one also has to ask why those same subsribers were "singled out" last year to receive an extra $5 off their bills.
> 
> People were ok being "special" and "singled out" when they were getting an extra good deal... but now don't want to pay the same as the rest of us because they still think they are "special".


Hey, I AM special. Tell Charlie and Jim that next time you talk to them.


----------



## Paul Secic

HDMe said:


> You are, of course, missing how they are able to offer these downloads at $1-$2 per episode... it is because they already got money from the original broadcast and advertisers. IF these episodes were exclusively available for download (with no other source of revenue) then I can assure you they would want much more than $1-$2 per episode.
> 
> This is also why a la cart will never produce the results some think it will (lower bills)... because a lot of channels (the ones you claim are better than ESPN and you only want to watch them) would not be able to stay in business... and the remaining channels would only stay in business by raising their rates significantly... so in the end we would end up paying the same bills for less channels.
> 
> Why some fail to see this is beyond me... and I swore I wouldn't get sucked into the deja vu a la carte conversation again, but I failed on my self-promise.


If Congress ever did pass ala carte, I'd hope they'd be smart enough to keep this system. But ala carte won't happen!


----------



## wkomorow

HDMe said:


> In order to answer that question, one also has to ask why those same subsribers were "singled out" last year to receive an extra $5 off their bills.
> 
> People were ok being "special" and "singled out" when they were getting an extra good deal... but now don't want to pay the same as the rest of us because they still think they are "special".


Many companies provide additional discounts or services to customers who spend the most money with them. It rewards loyalty and entices people to spend even more money because you feel "special". Even my local nursery gives me a discount because I typically spend over $1000 a year in plants and services with them. As a result, it is the only place that I use for plants and for florist services.

In addition to inspiring loyalty, at one time AEP was the only package that did not get a discount if you paid annually instead of monthly, so I think there was an attempt to provide an extra discount to those subscribers. I used to pay everything with Dish annually and as a result I would get 12 months of service at an 11 month price. If Dish were again willing to provide a discount for annual billing for AEP and the HD pak, I'd take the option in a second.


----------



## Geronimo

Steve Mehs said:


> They should do that any how, in one week it will be 2007, there is no reason for analog cable to exist in 2007. Digital simulcast is nice, but it's not the answer, bandwidth is still being hogged by analog. Cable companies need to tell granny to rent a box or shove it. Those of us with $200+ cable bills are more important then granny who pays $40 for 70 channels of analog snow, our wants should be given higher priority, remove as much analog as possible, force everyone to rent a box, use the bandwidth to relieve compression on digital SD, then add as much HD as possible. Show the dish companies what it means to be a digital entertainment powerhouse in the 21st century. But that won't happen for a while.


well there are still quite a few people-- and yes some of them are grandmothers---who re a bit less high tech than others. while each of them pays less than the early adopters there are lots of them. because of the income they represent---and the political power they have---most if not all cable companies have chosen to keep analog going a bit longer.

as time goes on we will see not only all the new channels on digital tiers but several of the older ones as well. but it will be a slow process as the cable companies do what they feel is in their best business and political interest.


----------



## Paul Secic

jrb531 said:


> I am very close to dropping to the lowest tier of service. There are only 2 channels that I watch in the 120 pack that have been keeping me there and it's getting harder and harder to justify it. Considering the $20 cost, quality HD programming is the utter pits as discussed to death in another thread.
> 
> HDnet and Discovery are about the only two I watch. I love the content of TNT but the stretched screen is the pits.
> 
> Dish has me for 11 more months per contract. If things do not improve I will sadly drop them for local cable or FIOS so I can get my internet from the same company.
> 
> I hate to say it but after awhile the "gee-wiz" factor for High Def wears off when the programming content sucks. Yes there are a few HD gems but, IMHO, not $20 a month worth.
> 
> Thousands of movies filmed in 35mm over the past decades and look at the crap we have to view.
> 
> -JB


Well I just saved about $13. I cancelled Showtime & WPIX. Showtime's movies are not very good.


----------



## wkomorow

Geronimo said:


> well there are still quite a few people-- and yes some of them are grandmothers---who re a bit less high tech than others. while each of them pays less than the early adopters there are lots of them. because of the income they represent---and the political power they have---most if not all cable companies have chosen to keep analog going a bit longer.
> 
> as time goes on we will see not only all the new channels on digital tiers but several of the older ones as well. but it will be a slow process as the cable companies do what they feel is in their best business and political interest.


In addition to that - at least here in Massachusetts - cable services and pricing is licensed by local authorities. Even if cable wanted to require all subscribers get digital boxes, I would think they would need approval from hundreds of local authorities. Locally, the cable authority has required a special low price for residents in low income housing - who due to contract can only receive basic cable (cost is included in their rent). Cable would need to provide free boxes and renegotiate their agreements and that would take time and some very unhappy public meetings.


----------



## transplant

I got the HD pkg earlier this year with a lease on a VIP211. I think you have a 12 month lease and if you switch before the 12 months is up you have to pay a penalty. If I switched now to D would I have to pay the penalty?


----------



## harsh

transplant said:


> If I switched now to D would I have to pay the penalty?


There is no term on the lease, but you have committed to 18 months of a certain level of programming. I'm not sure what the penalty is, but over at DirecTV, it is about $12.50 per month. Further, if you find out after a month that you don't like DirecTV any more, you'll be stuck with the balance of a 24 month commitment.


----------



## jrb531

Slamminc11 said:


> Well since you apperantly don't know what is what, That package is still around, they just kept adding programming to it. It's latest name is AT60 and about to become AT100. I would keep going, but don't want to confuse you any longer.


Of course they kept adding programming (and higher prices) to it and the other two packages.

Why not add another $20 low cost package? Why are they so afraid of real choice?

And I'll ask again.... if I want to subscribe to the 60 channel package but like a single channel in the 180 package why can't I pay for that one additional channel instead of having to subscribe to both the 120 and 180 pack just to get the one channel?

Any answers?

*smiles*

-JB


----------



## jrb531

juan ellitinez said:


> Not to mention if alacart ever took place there would be a "service delivery fee" or some other such nonsence to cover the cost of operating satellites , cable lines etc. that is already bundled into todays basic rates


I am not advocating that the "distributors" lose money but rather if I have to pay $50 or $75 a month for a "package" then let "me" pick the channels I want and not you or the programmers deciding what to force down my throught.

Put channels in three price ranges and allow us to select up to $50 worth for example. This hurts the distributors bottom line very little, allows up choice but the programmers hate this because we pick and they do not.

-JB


----------



## shilton

So NO new channels will be added to any of these packages? Surely Charlie does not think he can toss in a few audio streams and call that anything of major signifigance does he?

You'd think they'd toss us a bone and move a few channels from the upper tiers into the lower packages or add something new. Comcast carries all ten million MTV and VH1 Channels in this area. It'd be nice to see MTV Hits (the only MTV channel that really still plays all music all the time like it used to be) and I know Charlie gets requests for stations all the time.

I think its time he cuts the fat and sticks to his promises to give us better service at a better price. If I wanted Siruis, I'd to buy a radio and pay $12.95 a month for my subscription. And the sports channels are getting too pricy these days too. Its not fair that those of us who may never turn on ESPN has to eat all the price increases. Put it in an upper tier or sell it as an add-on and let the people who want it pay for it.

I pretty much maintain AT180 for Boomerang only since Cartoon Network is such a piece of junk for kids these days. And I occasionally check out the Discovery Channels too, but if Boomerang was in AT120, AT180 would be history for me.


----------



## jrb531

shilton said:


> I pretty much maintain AT180 for Boomerang only since Cartoon Network is such a piece of junk for kids these days. And I occasionally check out the Discovery Channels too, but if Boomerang was in AT120, AT180 would be history for me.


They know this which is why they put only a few "must have" channels in the 120 and 180 packs to keep you paying the extra $10 or $20 for them.

I want a single channel in the 120 pack so why can't I subscribe to the 60 pack and pay a few bucks for the missing channel? Even if they ripped me off and charged $5 for the extra channel I would still save $5 a month.

Sports has ZERO business being in the lowest tier and many would argue that due to costs, sports should be in a separate package. I would guess that sports programming costs as much as HBO!

Of course we all know why sports is in the lowest tier... because this forces everyone to pay for sports and thus subsidizes the cost for those who want sports.

Now you could argue that sports is just one of many other types of programming and that people who only watch sports are forced to pay for stuff they consider crap but you cannot compare "very" expensive sports programming with the cost of kids shows or the "WE hate men channel" LOL

-JB


----------



## mruk69

Hmmmmm 250 - 180 = 70, How the heck did Charlie end up with 70 more channels? I think I might have to change to Comcast Triple Compilation. I currently have HD GOLD + HBO, but am sick of the price increases. Most of the channels in the 200's are junk advertising channels, I don't care for the Musak's either. He is trying to recuperate his legal fees, thats what he is doing. I should get a decrease for having to put up with all the crap I suffered since buying the VIP 211 last February and some of those problems still have not been fixed.
Charlie you can take that and shove it [email protected]#@434$#^?%#$6 (you know where).


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> And I'll ask again.... if I want to subscribe to the 60 channel package but like a single channel in the 180 package why can't I pay for that one additional channel instead of having to subscribe to both the 120 and 180 pack just to get the one channel?
> 
> Any answers?


Any answers you will like? 

There are a couple of regular channels available 'a la carte', but a lot has to do with the costs involved in running the entire system and the money providers require to allow E* to rebroadcast their programming. The channels want their money regardless of if people are watching - for example, every AT120 sub pays for Fox News whethere they watch it or not. Make it 'a la carte' and they will still want their money - the only way to get their money is to charge more.

In other words, ten million people paying 50¢ as part of a package gets them the same payment as two million paying $2.50 a la carte. Scale that as needed to make the numbers fit. The less popular the channel the more one would have to charge for them to make the same money and stay on the system for those who are actually willing to pay.

Is The Outdoor Channel worth $1.99 on it's own? Lets use that as the standard. Subscribe to AT60 (soon called "AT100") for $29.95 and cherry pick any basic channel you want for $1.99 from the higher levels. That might work. If you are expecting full pick and choose without paying a premium price you need to adjust your thinking.


----------



## Richard King

> And the sports channels are getting too pricy these days too. Its not fair that those of us who may never turn on ESPN has to eat all the price increases. Put it in an upper tier or sell it as an add-on and let the people who want it pay for it.


I agree. They could do away with all sports on satellite and I wouldn't even notice, however, could you imagine the whining going on here if they moved all sports (or even just ESPN) to an upper tier of programming packages. The roar would be deafening. :lol:


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> Is The Outdoor Channel worth $1.99 on it's own? Lets use that as the standard. Subscribe to AT60 (soon called "AT100") for $29.95 and cherry pick any basic channel you want for $1.99 from the higher levels. That might work. If you are expecting full pick and choose without paying a premium price you need to adjust your thinking.


I would be very happy to pay $2 or $5 for that matter for the one channel I want that is not in the 60 package. Heck it would save me a ton of $$$ as it now costs me $10 to take 120 just for that one channel. Add these additional increased and that $10 is now $13 and I'm seriously thinking if that one channel is now worth $13 a month! Heck I could get HBO for the cost of that one channel.

I'm thinking of dropping down to the lowest teir and sticking with HD until my 18 month contract is up and if the HD programming is not up to snuff for the $20 a month they charge... bye bye Dish and hello Cable + Phone + Internet on one bill.

I never thought I would ever see cable as an option so I'm hoping that this FIOS thingie gets up and running soon in Chicago.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

Richard King said:


> I agree. They could do away with all sports on satellite and I wouldn't even notice, however, could you imagine the whining going on here if they moved all sports (or even just ESPN) to an upper tier of programming packages. The roar would be deafening. :lol:


It would make far more sense to lower all the packages by $5 and then charge $10 for a sports package. Not only would this be more fair but it would cause the ESPN's of the world to stand up and notice that if they keep raising prices people will just cancel their sorry ass 

-JB


----------



## James Long

mruk69 said:


> Hmmmmm 250 - 180 = 70, How the heck did Charlie end up with 70 more channels?


One channel at a time ... plus Sirius (which has not been in the channel counts).

AT180 has been more than 180 channels for a while.


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> It would make far more sense to lower all the packages by $5 and then charge $10 for a sports package. Not only would this be more fair but it would cause the ESPN's of the world to stand up and notice that if they keep raising prices people will just cancel their sorry ass


Same math as before ... with ESPN being one of the most expensive problems in the equation. If ESPN dropped down from 12-13 million subscribers to a number willing to pay a la carte $10 per month could be about right to keep the same money going into their pocket (remembering that every $1 up is another group of customers that would find it too expensive, even if they wanted the programming).

I have not been to Chicago in a while ... but the government is pouring millions (seems like billions) into a road project to improve access for those that go there. And I get to pay a small portion of those millions. Spread out over millions of taxpayers it is annoying but I think we can handle the costs together. Maybe in a few years I can get the government to spend a quarter billion on a road I will use more often. I certainly don't have $374.4 million dollars on my own.

Same concept --- together we pool our money, the providers get paid and we get our channels for only 50¢ or less each in bulk.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Even when numbers are quoted, ESPN has NEVER been anywhere close to HBO. That is just crazy talk.

Last I knew, ESPN was somewhere over $3... which is only a shade more than the $2 the a la cart camp claims is what they think their channel is worth. So I fail to see the problem.

And people keep forgetting that the popular channels like ESPN help to keep the costs of the niche channels down to $1 or less by being in the same package.

If all channels were a la carte, then most of today's channels would be gone... ESPN would survive easily with its popularity, but we would all be paying more for less as the other variety of channels would not survive.

And lastly... if the satellite bill is truly too much for you to pay and you feel you are not getting your money's worth... Please please cancel immediately and do not pay another dime for TV. Save your money for something you believe is of better value and then you can stop complaining about how you are "ripped off".


----------



## juan ellitinez

HDMe said:


> Even when numbers are quoted, ESPN has NEVER been anywhere close to HBO. That is just crazy talk.
> 
> Last I knew, ESPN was somewhere over $3... which is only a shade more than the $2 the a la cart camp claims is what they think their channel is worth. So I fail to see the problem.
> 
> And people keep forgetting that the popular channels like ESPN help to keep the costs of the niche channels down to $1 or less by being in the same package.
> 
> If all channels were a la carte, then most of today's channels would be gone... ESPN would survive easily with its popularity, but we would all be paying more for less as the other variety of channels would not survive.
> 
> And lastly... if the satellite bill is truly too much for you to pay and you feel you are not getting your money's worth... Please please cancel immediately and do not pay another dime for TV. Save your money for something you believe is of better value and then you can stop complaining about how you are "ripped off".


 what about ESPN2, ESPNHD,ESPNHD2,ESPNEWS,ESPNU,ESPNCLASSIC and ESPN spanish. f they are charging 3 bucks for the whole line up its a good deal..but if it is 3 bucks a channel,..then yes I can see it costing more than HBO!!!!


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> Same math as before ... with ESPN being one of the most expensive problems in the equation. If ESPN dropped down from 12-13 million subscribers to a number willing to pay a la carte $10 per month could be about right to keep the same money going into their pocket (remembering that every $1 up is another group of customers that would find it too expensive, even if they wanted the programming).
> 
> I have not been to Chicago in a while ... but the government is pouring millions (seems like billions) into a road project to improve access for those that go there. And I get to pay a small portion of those millions. Spread out over millions of taxpayers it is annoying but I think we can handle the costs together. Maybe in a few years I can get the government to spend a quarter billion on a road I will use more often. I certainly don't have $374.4 million dollars on my own.
> 
> Same concept --- together we pool our money, the providers get paid and we get our channels for only 50¢ or less each in bulk.


I understand the concept full and well.

I do not understand the current system of having ZERO choice.

Allow any number of compromise setups that give us some choice:

1. Theme packages of like programs
2. Place all channels in a $1, $2 or $3 price range and allow up to pick as many as we want providing a $30 minimum.

I never advocated having 300 channels all with different costs and true ala-cart. If Dish is willing to sell a $20 package they should be allowed to offer us the channels "we" want as long as we do not drop below a certain price point.

The current system is hopelessly broken in that the yearly bloat will NEVER end. The programmers will not police themselves and only the threat of ala-cart allowed even the family package.

-JB


----------



## ebaltz

Cox cable just announced rate hikes here in Phoenix for February so it looks like its everywhere.


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> Even when numbers are quoted, ESPN has NEVER been anywhere close to HBO. That is just crazy talk.
> 
> Last I knew, ESPN was somewhere over $3... which is only a shade more than the $2 the a la cart camp claims is what they think their channel is worth. So I fail to see the problem.
> 
> And people keep forgetting that the popular channels like ESPN help to keep the costs of the niche channels down to $1 or less by being in the same package.
> 
> If all channels were a la carte, then most of today's channels would be gone... ESPN would survive easily with its popularity, but we would all be paying more for less as the other variety of channels would not survive.
> 
> And lastly... if the satellite bill is truly too much for you to pay and you feel you are not getting your money's worth... Please please cancel immediately and do not pay another dime for TV. Save your money for something you believe is of better value and then you can stop complaining about how you are "ripped off".


Why is the concept of "choice" so difficult for some to understand. I do not mind paying my $50 or $75 per month but let me decide "what" I pay for!!! If any single channel's price goes to high I can elect to pay or not pay it.

It's not a rip off "if" you watch all those channels. It becomes a rip off if they continue to "force" more and more channels on you at an additiona cost instead of bumping up the packages. Why not 4 or 5 or 6 packages? Why only 3 (and family does not count in my book)

-JB


----------



## Slamminc11

For all of you whining about a price increase, is there a pay tv provider (cable or satellite) that didn't raise their rates last year? How about the year before that? How about for 2007? Yeah, that's what I thought! Doesn't matter who you go with, they are going to raise your rates, it's part of life. 
So it seems to me you have a couple choices. Either disconnect and use rabbit ears or find a provider that best meets your needs and sign up, but just expect your rates to rise 1%-10% every year. It amazes me that even though rates go up every year, we still go though this same thread!


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> I understand the concept full and well.


I'm not sure that you do. It seems that you are stuck in the "self serving" trap of wanting what you want without regard to what is best for all.


jrb531 said:


> If Dish is willing to sell a $20 package they should be allowed to offer us the channels "we" want as long as we do not drop below a certain price point.


Here are some numbers:

ESPN alone: $3.85 per month
ESPN + ESPN2: $3.65 per month
add ESPNews or ESPNClassic: $3.25 per month
All four above: $3.10 per month
add ESPN U: $3.10 per month (for all five)

"Bulk Basic"
Regular (16): BITV, CNN, TOON, DISC, DHLTH, FLVNG, FXNWS, REAL, HNN, TLC, NICKT, OXYGN, TBS, TNT, USA, and TWC
Shopping (3): HSN, QVC, and SHNBC.
Public Interest (16): BYUTV, CSPAN, CSPN2, COLRS, DYSTR, EWTN, FEC, FSTV, GSN, HITN, LINK, NASA, NAUHS, RSRCH, TBN, and UCTV.
Click here:


Spoiler



$1.20



Locals: 50¢ per drop

These are the bulk per room prices for a residential MDU setup (see here) ... for reference the full AT60 MDU price is $9.00 per month, AT120 is $14.50 per month and AT180 is $21.00 per month. (Which is less that one pays as an individual subscriber).

I suppose if one MUST have a la cart that would be a good place to start. Give E* $20 per month for account maintainance and let people subscribe at 'bulk rates' beyond that.

Of course, MDU owners are getting such a good rate because they are promising a large number of drops in their system. Individual residential customers get the second 'drop' for $5 (less for dual tuner setups). It is all a balancing act.


----------



## TNGTony

jrb531 said:


> Why only 3 (and family does not count in my book)
> 
> -JB


Why not? Because it doesn't have the channels you want?


----------



## killzone

James Long said:


> I have not been to Chicago in a while ... but the government is pouring millions (seems like billions) into a road project to improve access for those that go there. And I get to pay a small portion of those millions. Spread out over millions of taxpayers it is annoying but I think we can handle the costs together. Maybe in a few years I can get the government to spend a quarter billion on a road I will use more often. I certainly don't have $374.4 million dollars on my own.
> 
> Same concept --- together we pool our money, the providers get paid and we get our channels for only 50¢ or less each in bulk.


There is a big difference between community projects and roads which directly or indirectly get used by all (i.e. the food you last ate, just might have traveled over that road - or that netflix movie that you just got in the mail might have traveled over that road.)

TV programming however is different. There are some (perhaps many) channels that I or others will NEVER watch, directly or indirectly. There might even be some channels that I take exception to and wouldn't want even if they paid ME to receive it. Therefore why should I be forced to pay for content that I will never use.

If we extended this business model to food, then you would have a monthly bill of $X and you are forced to buy steak and hamburgers - even though you might be a vegetarian. God forbid your tier doesn't include milk - for that you have to ante up an extra $Y which comes packed with liver and brocholi.

The problem as I see it, lies with the fact that companies that own more than one channel, use their quality channels as leverage to force their trash into the lineups. As far as I'm concerned this should be illegal. If a chanel is not good enough to make it on it's own, let them die, don't force subsidization on us.

Now for my rant about HD programming. Personally, I don't think Dish's HD lineup is worth $20 a month. It's all a bunch of random fluff. It's just like most of the top 180 programming. A few good channels mixed with subsidized junk. I'd be surprised if anyone could find more than 2 channels that they would like. My local cable company (Cablevision) doesn't even charge for HD programming and they offer more HD channels that I would actually watch (CW and UPN).

It seems to me, the best compromise would be to offer some base package of 30 of the most popular (even that would have some fluff) channels, and then let people pay for what they want above and beyond that.


----------



## juan ellitinez

Slamminc11 said:


> For all of you whining about a price increase, is there a pay tv provider (cable or satellite) that didn't raise their rates last year? How about the year before that? How about for 2007? Yeah, that's what I thought! Doesn't matter who you go with, they are going to raise your rates, it's part of life.
> So it seems to me you have a couple choices. Either disconnect and use rabbit ears or find a provider that best meets your needs and sign up, but just expect your rates to rise 1%-10% every year. It amazes me that even though rates go up every year, we still go though this same thread!


Because if we didn't whine and complain RATES WOULD GO EVEN HIGHER!!! By expressing our displeasure perhaps someone will LISTEN , by sitting around quiet like the beancounters would just assume NOBODY CARES and jack prices higher


----------



## Stewart Vernon

juan ellitinez said:


> Because if we didn't whine and complain RATES WOULD GO EVEN HIGHER!!! By expressing our displeasure perhaps someone will LISTEN , by sitting around quiet like the beancounters would just assume NOBODY CARES and jack prices higher


Whining does nothing. If you continue to pay your bill, then you are accepting the new rates and saying they are worth the money. If you truly feel ripped off, then stop paying. That is the only way to register your opinion with a company. If enough people stop paying, then something will change.

All the whining does is just annoy people.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jrb531 said:


> Why is the concept of "choice" so difficult for some to understand. I do not mind paying my $50 or $75 per month but let me decide "what" I pay for!!! If any single channel's price goes to high I can elect to pay or not pay it.
> 
> It's not a rip off "if" you watch all those channels. It becomes a rip off if they continue to "force" more and more channels on you at an additiona cost instead of bumping up the packages. Why not 4 or 5 or 6 packages? Why only 3 (and family does not count in my book)


I've been through this too many times to count... How much TV can you watch anyway? If you sleep at least 6 hours, and alot another couple of hours to bathroom and eating time... then figure you work some part of the day to earn an income... how much is left for TV?

Even if you only pay for 1 single channel, unless you watch it 24 hours per day 7 days per week year-round, then you are ALWAYS paying for something that you aren't watching!

So that argument goes out the window very fast.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

juan ellitinez said:


> what about ESPN2, ESPNHD,ESPNHD2,ESPNEWS,ESPNU,ESPNCLASSIC and ESPN spanish. f they are charging 3 bucks for the whole line up its a good deal..but if it is 3 bucks a channel,..then yes I can see it costing more than HBO!!!!


I don't know how they handle ESPN Desportes since I don't have any international channels or packages... but all the rest of the ESPN channels (not counting HD) are bundled into that $3 or so charge.

I do not know if they are asking more for the HD feeds or not, though Dish is asking more for them obviously as part of the HD pack.

But I can safely say that no single ESPN channel is $3... but rather the suite of channels is that.

It's all well and good for people to toss around magic numbers like "I would pay $2 per channel if I could pick any 5 I want"... but that is not reality. More than likely there would be some default service fee that you'd have to pay on such a plan that covers the business needs + profit... then you'd have to pay a per-channel fee beyond that... and many channels would die a quick death, some a slow death, as a result.

The fact that a lot of people sign up for cable/satellite to get a channel like ESPN in the basic package is how many of the other channels in that basic package can be so cheap. Before channels like ESPN, most folks did not have or want payTV at all.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

killzone said:


> If we extended this business model to food, then you would have a monthly bill of $X and you are forced to buy steak and hamburgers - even though you might be a vegetarian. God forbid your tier doesn't include milk - for that you have to ante up an extra $Y which comes packed with liver and brocholi.


You're using a bad analogy, though... I often bring up the buffet metaphor.

You pay $6 to eat at the buffet, or you can pay $8 to eat at the additional desert tray buffet too... and on weekends and special dinners where they have lobster, the buffet costs $10... but there's no way you can eat some of everything on the buffet without being sick... and a vegetarian pays the same as a kid who only eats candy from the desert tray.

If you aren't getting your money's worth at the buffet, you eat somewhere else. Stop eating at the buffet and complaining about the menu. It's pretty simple.

If cable/satellite is not worth the money, in your eyes, then buy your programming elsewhere. Buy/rent DVDs or watch OTA or pay half your neighbor's bill one month and ask if you can come to his house to just watch the programs you want to watch.

Or, read a book... or a magazine... or be creative and entertain yourself.

There are lots and lots of options... but you can't complain that the buffet isn't what you want while still paying to eat there... and you can't force McDonalds to serve a Burger King sandwich... and you can't always even pick what you want on your sandwich even at Subway... but you can eat somewhere else.


----------



## killzone

HDMe said:


> I've been through this too many times to count... How much TV can you watch anyway? If you sleep at least 6 hours, and alot another couple of hours to bathroom and eating time... then figure you work some part of the day to earn an income... how much is left for TV?
> 
> Even if you only pay for 1 single channel, unless you watch it 24 hours per day 7 days per week year-round, then you are ALWAYS paying for something that you aren't watching!
> 
> So that argument goes out the window very fast.


Not at all. It's your argument that is flawed. For one, those with a DVR, may in fact be recording content 24/7 on the 1 said channel.

More importantly however, there is a difference between paying for a channel that you watch (and expect to watch) some of the time vs paying for a channel that you never watch and don't intend to watch.


----------



## FTA Michael

First, I refuse to get too involved in a la carte discussions. We're arguing in a vacuum and too often projecting results and side effects that are far from certain.

Second, I appeal to everyone to *stop using analogies* for a la carte. It's not exactly like a newspaper or a restaurant or a herd of cattle or Captain Midnight. It is what it is, which in this case is that it isn't. 


James Long said:


> Give E* $20 per month for account maintainance and let people subscribe at 'bulk rates' beyond that.


I like the concept very much. Right now, you can subscribe to certain non-package programming (superstations, HBO), but E* then charges $5 extra for access. If that means that the current "account maintainance" fee is $5/month, that's even better than $20.


----------



## Jim5506

If you want satellite programming to look like OTA (few choices and poor quality), by all means push a-la-carte.


----------



## lamp525

shilton said:


> So NO new channels will be added to any of these packages? Surely Charlie does not think he can toss in a few audio streams and call that anything of major signifigance does he?
> 
> You'd think they'd toss us a bone and move a few channels from the upper tiers into the lower packages or add something new. Comcast carries all ten million MTV and VH1 Channels in this area. It'd be nice to see MTV Hits (the only MTV channel that really still plays all music all the time like it used to be) and I know Charlie gets requests for stations all the time.
> 
> I think its time he cuts the fat and sticks to his promises to give us better service at a better price. If I wanted Siruis, I'd to buy a radio and pay $12.95 a month for my subscription. And the sports channels are getting too pricy these days too. Its not fair that those of us who may never turn on ESPN has to eat all the price increases. Put it in an upper tier or sell it as an add-on and let the people who want it pay for it.
> 
> I pretty much maintain AT180 for Boomerang only since Cartoon Network is such a piece of junk for kids these days. And I occasionally check out the Discovery Channels too, but if Boomerang was in AT120, AT180 would be history for me.


we should get some channels out of the 180 to the 120..lifetime movie channel hallmark movie channel


----------



## James Long

FTA Michael said:


> I like the concept very much. Right now, you can subscribe to certain non-package programming (superstations, HBO), but E* then charges $5 extra for access. If that means that the current "account maintainance" fee is $5/month, that's even better than $20.


I thought they raised that to $6 last February? Since so little is available "a la carte" the $5/$6 fee isn't much of an issue. There are not that many people paying that fee just to have locals or superstations without an AT or other base package, Probably the majority of customers paying that fee are international customers who don't want an AT/DL package. And those a la carte rates are generally higher.

Since individuals are not buying in bulk it would be odd to have the bulk rates. Individuals on an MDU system get to pay the same rates as individuals with their own antennas. The bulk rates given REQUIRE a five to ten year contract, 100% participation (all units at a complex getting the exact same channel service). People here scream enough about an 18 month commitment ... try five years!


lamp525 said:


> we should get some channels out of the 180 to the 120..lifetime movie channel hallmark movie channel


Channels dropping to a lower package would be nice ... especially when in essence four year subscribers to DishNetwork have been bumped up an entire level in price. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Hallmark Movie Channel is not available in AT180(250) or any other package than DishFamily.


----------



## killzone

HDMe said:


> You're using a bad analogy, though... I often bring up the buffet metaphor.
> 
> You pay $6 to eat at the buffet, or you can pay $8 to eat at the additional desert tray buffet too... and on weekends and special dinners where they have lobster, the buffet costs $10... but there's no way you can eat some of everything on the buffet without being sick... and a vegetarian pays the same as a kid who only eats candy from the desert tray.
> 
> If you aren't getting your money's worth at the buffet, you eat somewhere else. Stop eating at the buffet and complaining about the menu. It's pretty simple.
> 
> If cable/satellite is not worth the money, in your eyes, then buy your programming elsewhere. Buy/rent DVDs or watch OTA or pay half your neighbor's bill one month and ask if you can come to his house to just watch the programs you want to watch.


There is a big difference however. At the buffet you can still order "the" drink you want. Likewise, if there wasn't something on the menu for you to eat, you wouldn't be eating there and if there is even just 1 item on the menu to your liking you will still get your 1 meal. Sattelite/cable equivalent of the buffet would be forcing you to pay not the $10 buffet cost, but $10 x how ever many dishes they have on the buffet and forcing me to take a plate of each to my table even though I don't want to eat it.

In any case, I don't expect this model to change any time soon. It's to the distributor's as well as the programmer's advantage to keep it this way. They get to sell you stuff you don't need just by bundling it along with something you want.


----------



## James Long

In the E* buffet you may have to take a tray full of drinks to get the one you want but NOBODY is forcing you to consume every glass. Fortunately being a virtual service and not a drink tray those extra glasses don't take up any extra room on your table.

Just think of it as a gift bag worth over $200 that you can pick up for only $20. 

Back when Windows ME was introduced I bought the upgrade just for all the free stuff the store was selling IF you bought ME. I still don't have ME on a system ... but all the "free" stuff came in handy.


----------



## oldave

juan ellitinez said:


> Because if we didn't whine and complain RATES WOULD GO EVEN HIGHER!!! By expressing our displeasure perhaps someone will LISTEN , by sitting around quiet like the beancounters would just assume NOBODY CARES and jack prices higher


Please don't mistake this forum as the "Dish Network Corporate Customer Service Site."

While there are folks at Echostar who do come here (and the "other" forum) and kinda keep track of what folks are saying, the whining and complaining here doesn't accomplish much, if anything.

You're still voting with your wallet. If you don't like what the prices are, go someplace else. It really is that simple.

Every year, prices of just about everything go up. When I was 16, I knew I'd never pay less than a dollar a gallon for gasoline... and, except for a few weeks of price wars, I never have. I'm pretty sure I'll never pay less than $2/gallon anymore.

If you think it's wrong that things that are necessary to life continue to increase, I would encourage you to insist that your Congressman do something about that... the government has the power to put price caps on everything... so direct your complaints to someplace it could actually do some good. Get Congress to require that all Americans be provided all video channels, via whatever means they prefer, for $20, $40, $90 or whatever amount per month you think is fair. Then work to get others to write their Congressfolk with the same ideas.

I can promise you, if can get millions up in arms about it, you can get Congress to pass such a law.

Alas, I believe you face an uphill battle... as a rule, folks understand that things cost what they cost, and make personal decisions about whether they can afford them.

However, I encourage you to join the battle, and fight to get standard rates (or free, if you have the cajones to fight for that) for video programming.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

killzone said:


> Not at all. It's your argument that is flawed. For one, those with a DVR, may in fact be recording content 24/7 on the 1 said channel.


You still haven't explained when you would watch it all. If you aren't home and have to DVR stuff from when you aren't home... then while you are watching the DVRed stuff you are missing live events on the channel.

It's like taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back... you never arrive because you are always missing more than you can possibly ever watch.

Some folks keep saying "I don't want to pay for what I don't watch"... which taken to its logical extreme would be to have every television program/movie on PPV so you only paid for what you take.

Personally, I don't like the value I would get for that PPV money... so I would rather not have television come to that. If it ever got that expensive, I would give my TV a rest.


----------



## patmurphey

Geez! A lot of whining going on here. If you don't like this company go somewhere else. If you think they are getting rich ripping you off, buy E* stock and share in the profits. 

The market will give you ala carte when there is enough demand (check the att-uverse site for a build your own plan). BUT, please don't get those bloated egos in congress involved. The last great law they wrote made it illegal for NJ residents to get both Philly and NY programming from cable and satellite companies - i.e., because thre is no "NJ" market, it is impossible to use TV to remain informed about state wide political issues.


----------



## jrb531

patmurphey said:


> Geez! A lot of whining going on here. If you don't like this company go somewhere else.


THIS IS THE ISSUE!!!!

I cannot go somewhere else because the same programmers provide the same "forced" content on every distributor.

I would gladly move to snother distributor if they offered me any "real" choice in the channels I want.

And once again (I've asked this 1000 times already)....

If I subscribe to the 60 package and want a single channel in the 180 package, why do I have to pay $20 more for that one channel?

Why are the three tiers piggy backed on each other? Example: Why do I have to subscribe to A "and" B just to get C? Why not A and C?

We have ZERO choice right now and I'm not asking for true ala-cart but rather "some" choice in what I pay for.

Package accoring to themes, package according to price (let me pick x number of channels in a $50 minimum package) - make all packages have different channels.... IE 4 packages that you can pick any or all - hell give a discount the more packages to take.

So stop trying to make me or anyone else who is not happy with ZERO choice as some form of nutbag who does not understand volume discounts or ad revenue based on subscriber counts (ever if people are not actually watching those ads!)

The system was set up in the 70's when we have 10% of the channels we have now. Three basic packages (4 if you count family) just to not translate into choice with hundreds of channels.

When we had 30 channels, having 10 per package made sense.

Heck I would be happy if they put 50 channels per package and allowed to to pick "any" of the packages.... IE not have to subscribe to A, B and C just to get D.

And one last question for any who dare to answer....

What, pray tell, will stop the ever increasing prices as more and more and more channels are added each year? What is the checks and balances of the pay TV industry?

-JB


----------



## Mikey

Sorry, but you ARE a nutbag. There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you "Freedom of Choice". The closest that you'll get is "The pursuit of happiness". When the capitalist economic system decides that there is a market for ala-carte programming, you'll see a provider that'll try to service that market.


----------



## Jim5506

He is not a nutbag, he is spoiled.

Someone with his fervor needs to start a third satellite network based on a-la-carte and prove that it will not work once and for all.


----------



## eatonjb

Jim5506 said:


> He is not a nutbag, he is spoiled.
> 
> Someone with his fervor needs to start a third satellite network based on a-la-carte and prove that it will not work once and for all.


ok guys.. don't make me pull this Forum over!!!


----------



## Jim5506

Honest, sir, I was right at the limit, that other guy was speeding, not me!!


----------



## Mike D-CO5

I don't think he is a nutbag at all. He is simply saying what has become very very obvious to most of us on this board: THere is no end in sight for price increases for cable/satellite. HE is angry ,just like I am , that there is no alternative to this pricing structure. It shouldn't cost a $100.00 or more to just watch a few channels you like on tv. 

Since 2000 the price of AEP has gone up $20.00 . The price of this years increase for both Aep and hd is now $10.00 more. The single largest price increase in either Satellite or cable history that I can tell. This is outrageous and it needs to be tapered with something that helps the consumer. 

Ala carte is the way the Canadian sat companies do it. You can pick theme packs and add them together to get what ever you want and there is no penalty for doing so. So if you like NEWS but no sports , you can do so . You have freedom of Choice in the matter. The capitalistic system that we all operate under is supposed to guarantee that . THE more a company is doing what their consumers want , the more money they get and the more subscribers. And of course the opposite is supposed to be true as well. The problem is there is NO COMPETITION in this country with satellite/cable or telecos. They are all doing the same thing and getting gouged by companies like ESPN the true hog in the industry, and then passing on to us the price increases every year. 

THe fact that the premium movie channels are going up is ridiculous. Just about anyone can get the movies they want from either Netflix, Blockbuster or soon online with the internet. Why do they think more people will continue to pay for the same movies rerun all month long ? 

What is the future for all this? I see people cutting the ties to both satellite and cable as more video content can be found online and will soon be able to be seen on the tv. I also see more people in congress getting involved to start the ala carte process all over again. Do you remember last year? Congress was going to get involved ,because of customer complaints about no ala carte and higer price increases every year. THe new family packs were sat/cables answer to this and the ferver died quickly. I see the controversy coming back with a more consumer friendly democratic congress convening soon.


----------



## AVJohnnie

HDMe said:


> In order to answer that question, one also has to ask why those same subsribers were "singled out" last year to receive an extra $5 off their bills.
> 
> People were ok being "special" and "singled out" when they were getting an extra good deal... but now don't want to pay the same as the rest of us because they still think they are "special".


I guess I fail to see how it is that two wrongs somehow make a right, other than for sake of retribution. I have subscribed to the "top tier du jour" on an annual basis since I became a Dish subscriber nearly four years ago. I've never requested nor expected special treatment from Dish - I do however expect fair and equitable consideration.

I'm sorry but I am also failing to see where the extra $5.00 more per month that is being assessed only against the top tier subscribers (AEP+HD) equates to "pay the same as the rest of us".


----------



## Steve Mehs

To continue with the food analogies (Sorry Michael ) when I go to BK and order my Triple Whopper meal, they charge extra for the good stuff, bacon and cheese (HBO and Showtime) but don’t reduce the price when I tell them no crap, lettuce and tomato (Lifetime and MTV). I don’t want lettuce and tomato, I don’t eat vegetables, but I still have to pay for it anyway whether I eat it or not . I think a la carte in the multichannel video provider market is a bad idea, I’m 100% against it, unless existing packaging structure are kept fully in tact. I like to channel surf, in an a la carte system, I wound not pay for HGTV or Fine Living, but yes occasionally I watch those channels, because I find something interesting on them. Cartoon Network is crap, but I enjoy the 3:00AM showing of Family Guy. WAAAAAAHHHH Why do I have to pay (a la carte) for Cartoon Network when I only watch one show. *Sniffle*

If you must have a la cart, it say do it the right way, not per channel, but per show. Move to an IPTV based system of TV On Demand a la iTunes, where shows are $1.99 an episode, commercial free. Older shows can be had for $0.99 per episode, new hot shows for $2.99. This is an example only. Each production studio should be able to charge as much as they please. If Alliance Atlantis feels they can get $4.99 for an episode of CSI, go for it. This way no can one whine about paying for stuff they don’t want.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

AVJohnnie said:


> I'm sorry but I am also failing to see where the extra $5.00 more per month that is being assessed only against the top tier subscribers (AEP+HD) equates to "pay the same as the rest of us".


It is not only being assessed against you.

All the metal packs today are $20 more than the equivalent non-HD packs, except Platinum which is only $15... As of next Feb, everyone will have to pay the same $20 for HD.

That is the only fair way to do it. How can you complain about unfair treatment when up until next Feb you are clearly in the camp benefiting from an unfair discount that the rest of us have to pay for our HD.


----------



## jonsnow

True believers,

At 60 dollars a month, the price the average consumer is now paying after fees and locals, you can buy a whole season of any cable tv show each month, that's 12+ shows a year, with cash to spare to buy any number of dvds at stores like amazon. Those now supporting dish's latest price increase and the whole package system, a type of welfare system for unwatchable niche channels with no competition, are devoid of any reason or reality and are akin to a religious cult by now. Nothing can be said or done to change their minds.

Jon
:bowdown:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I don't think he is a nutbag at all. He is simply saying what has become very very obvious to most of us on this board: THere is no end in sight for price increases for cable/satellite.


So is there an end in sight for the price increases to fast food, groceries, power, phone, heating/cooling, music/CDs, and on and on and on? Or how about, is there an end in sight to the raises people are getting at their jobs?

Almost everything goes up in price on some regular basis along with inflation. Some things stay flat or go down, but most things keep up with inflation. Some folks are actually expecting basic economics to break down on a whim.



Mike D-CO5 said:


> HE is angry ,just like I am , that there is no alternative to this pricing structure. It shouldn't cost a $100.00 or more to just watch a few channels you like on tv.


It doesn't. You could subscribe to the $20 DishFamily package and watch a few channels. For $40 you can watch a few more... for $50 a few more than that... and so forth. No one is forcing you to pay the $100 per month for that particular package.

Now if your basis of argument is that you can't get what you want for the price you want... well, that's a silly argument.

I want leather shoes for $5, but they don't cost that... Why is there no choice for me to pay $5 for leather shoes? Why won't the government step in and stop the overpricing on leather shoes?

Doesn't that sound silly?

That's what a lot of the "I want my channel for whatever I want to pay" comments sound like to many of us.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jonsnow said:


> True believers,
> 
> At 60 dollars a month, the price the average consumer is now paying after fees and locals, you can buy a whole season of any cable tv show each month, that's 12+ shows a year, with cash to spare to buy any number of dvds at stores like amazon. Those now supporting dish's latest price increase and the whole package system, a type of welfare system for unwatchable niche channels with no competition, are devoid of any reason or reality and are akin to a religious cult by now. Nothing can be said or done to change their minds.


You make a good point... All the folks who want only to watch certain things... you can do that now. Wait until the DVDs come out and buy them. Then you are only paying for what you want to watch.

That's a very good suggestion for those who think they are being ripped off by satellite.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

HDMe said:


> So is there an end in sight for the price increases to fast food, groceries, power, phone, heating/cooling, music/CDs, and on and on and on? Or how about, is there an end in sight to the raises people are getting at their jobs?
> 
> Almost everything goes up in price on some regular basis along with inflation. Some things stay flat or go down, but most things keep up with inflation. Some folks are actually expecting basic economics to break down on a whim.
> 
> It doesn't. You could subscribe to the $20 DishFamily package and watch a few channels. For $40 you can watch a few more... for $50 a few more than that... and so forth. No one is forcing you to pay the $100 per month for that particular package.
> 
> Now if your basis of argument is that you can't get what you want for the price you want... well, that's a silly argument.
> 
> I want leather shoes for $5, but they don't cost that... Why is there no choice for me to pay $5 for leather shoes? Why won't the government step in and stop the overpricing on leather shoes?
> 
> Doesn't that sound silly?
> 
> That's what a lot of the "I want my channel for whatever I want to pay" comments sound like to many of us.


IF you had read and quoted the entire post you would have seen I clearly stated that the Canadian sat system had the best way to do programming. THey let you add the theme packs you want and delete the ones you don't so no penalty if you don't add everything. This clearly lets the consumer save money and increases their personal satisfaction with the service. For example if you like News but not sports you don't add them. So you save money since channels like ESPN cause most of the price increases yearly.

To keep the minimum of what I like from Dish I had to downgrade to the top 120 and hd pack, Or silver pack till Feb, from the Plat pack . This cost me about $95.00 with tax included a month ,to enjoy two 622 dvrs with Dvr Fees Per receiver. The hd channels I enjoy are limited to a few and only three of the Voom channels. I think it is silly to pay close to $100.00 a month to enjoy only a few of the channels out of the entire pack , but if I don't take the entire package I lose favorite channels.

You can argue all you want FOR the price increase for whatever reasons you can come up with . I still say that NO satellite or cable company I have ever heard of has EVER had a $10.00 increase a month on a programming pack. THis is OUTRAGEOUS and as I stated before this and more price increases each year since 2000, will cause more people to talk to their congress men and yell for ala carte. The family packs were created this year to quell the cries last February for ala carte. THey are sadly lacking in most basic channels that many want . THe only thing they did good was take out the sports which caused the price to go down to $19.99 a month.

I for one am tired of subsidizing the sports fanatics and their yearly price increases. But it sounds like you have money to burn , so you go right ahead and keep paying those increases. I only hope your raises keep up with the price increases , especially if they keep being $10.00 a month each year on the programming you like.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> IF you had read and quoted the entire post you would have seen I clearly stated that the Canadian sat system had the best way to do programming.


But does that work well, do Canadian viewers actually care? My argument could be shot right from the get go, given the relatively small population of Canada, and the fact I have no idea if Canadian cable companies do the same thematic pricing structure as the satellite providers but Bell and Star Choice only have a combined 2.5 Million subscribers.


----------



## FTA Michael

Steve Mehs said:


> I have no idea if Canadian cable companies do the same thematic pricing structure as the satellite providers


Quick Googling reveals that (a) Rogers is Canada's largest cable operator, and (b) Rogers Cable offers bundles that look very similar to the satellite versions. If you go here http://www.shoprogers.com/store/cable/ptv/default_main.asp and click View Catalogue, you'll get a good feel for it.

Note that all of these Canadian systems require a certain monthly minimum, all offer certain channels only as part of a bundle/package (as opposed to individually a la carte), and all offer no-brainer packages containing the most popular channels. That last point suggests that there are some people (a lot of people?) who don't want to think that hard about picking and choosing channels.

And there's the caveat that other, smaller Canadian cable systems might well use some other method, but I didn't want to make this an exhaustive study of multichannel delivery up north.


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> If I subscribe to the 60 package and want a single channel in the 180 package, why do I have to pay $20 more for that one channel?


Because that is the price that has been set on viewing that channel. I assume you want to increase government interference in the private contracts. Personally when government steps in things tend to cost more (got to add the regulatory fee for policing the situation).

Go into Wal*Mart and throw a hissy fit because you can't buy a 42" HDTV for $99.99 (note decimal point). You are a consumer. You don't get to set the prices. You only get to choose whether or not that price is acceptable to you and either pay or walk away.

Welcome to your role in society.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Doesn't sound like the folks in Canada are any more for a la carte than people here... otherwise, all their systems would be a la carte only right?

For that matter... what's the point comparing to Canada anyway? Unless you are planning to move to Canada, it really doesn't change anything here... and of course, if Canada is the place to be for satellite options and TV is the primary thing on your mind... move to Canada! There is some pretty country up there, so I'm sure lots of nice places to live and the folks are friendly too 

Never have I said I love price increases... I would love it if prices stayed the same or went down... but that's not a realistic expectation when pretty much everything else goes up by comparison... unless the whole country agrees no one will get any more raises, and all other costs of business (like construction and materials and such) stay the same... there is no reason not to expect price increases in lots of things, not the least of which is satellite TV.

Some of the folks who spend the most time complaining, could have put their time to better use and gotten paid for part-time work instead of spending hours complaining... and that right there would pay for the price increase! 

The price of my satellite is just not that high on the list to whine about. No, I don't cheer the price increases... but so far they are in line with all the other stuff that has gone up recently... and IF I ever feel I am not getting my money's worth, I will take my consistent advice and cancel service rather than complain of being ripped off.


----------



## TNGTony

James Long said:


> Go into Wal*Mart and throw a hissy fit because you can't buy a 42" HDTV for $99.99 (note decimal point). You are a consumer. You don't get to set the prices. You only get to choose whether or not that price is acceptable to you and either pay or walk away.
> 
> Welcome to your role in society.


But that isn't a good analogy. If I go to a Wal*Mart and find that the TV I want costs $1200 but the TV comes with a "free" TV Cabinet, dining set, kitchen sink and living room group. This is the only way I can get the TV, or the living room group or the TV stand. I have a choice to buy that TV at Wal*Mart or go to another store.

Now what if ALL the stores sell the same kind of groups and you cannot guy JUST the TV from anyone. No one in the industry will sell you just a TV. How long before government intervention then?

You try and buy laundry detergent, but they only way anyone will sell you laudtry detergent is if you buy a washer and dryer set. The entire industry does the same thing and you as a consumer have no choice. How long before intervention then?

I know these are extreme examples but it IS the same thing. There are only 4 or 5 groups that own all the most popular channels and they all insist that all the channels be grouped together and they all insist that you cannot buy them separately, there is no competintion. That is one of the 4 basic things the government is there for... to break up monopolies!

The rule would be simple.... You can own all the channels you want. You must sell them all separately. You can have bundles if you want too, but you must offer the channels separately to both providers and consumers. Failure to do so will cost you double your total publicly announced corporate profits for the previous year per channel not offered a la carte. Cable systems must also allow a la carte or the same fate will befall them.

Done! Let the market decide. Right now the market cannot decide because everyone is restricting free trade!

Pie in the sky, yes. but the other option is to go back to the 7-7-7 rule and add another 7 to the number of cable channels a single company can own or control.

I really do not see why ANYONE would be oposed to a la carte as an *OPTION* to those of us that want HBO and "The Science Channel" and nothing more! If it costs me $10 less a month, it may still be a better deal for me if I "really" don't watch all the other crap!

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long

Forget the analogy as long as you remember the point: The seller sets the prices. You don't have to buy. Even if that seller is the only source or all sellers use the same tactics to set prices you don't have to buy.

Perhaps some government agency should look at whether or not there is a crime involved in the way prices are set and packaging is done. Perhaps not.

I wouldn't mind if E* offered a la carte as an option ... but it is hardly an option if the government steps in and requires a la carte and regulates the process to death.


----------



## harsh

Mike D-CO5 said:


> IF you had read and quoted the entire post you would have seen I clearly stated that the Canadian sat system had the best way to do programming. THey let you add the theme packs you want and delete the ones you don't so no penalty if you don't add everything. This clearly lets the consumer save money and increases their personal satisfaction with the service. For example if you like News but not sports you don't add them. So you save money since channels like ESPN cause most of the price increases yearly.


Show me the BEV lineup you would pick and how much it costs and then we'll talk. My local Comcast used to play games with little packlets and it ended up costing $6.99 for a couple of channels that I wanted (and six that I didn't).

If you're going to assail Dish Network about unbundling, you shouldn't leave any of their direct competitors out of the discussion. If nobody is willing to stand up against the program providers, why should Dish Network be any different?


> I still say that NO satellite or cable company I have ever heard of has EVER had a $10.00 increase a month on a programming pack.


You seem to have lost sight of the fact that the Platinum package was already at a $5 discount relative to the AEP package. It was known by many as a "loss leader" from the very beginning. Now the halo has gone away.

To be certain, the increase is greater than the rate of inflation. That is certainly something to ponder. Comcast says it is because they are having to build out. Dish Network and DirecTV are having to loft new satellites. Everybody is having to expand to offer the latest and greatest.

Are you subsidizing someone else? Maybe. Are you getting a better deal than you might from cable or DirecTV? Probably. Does it really matter to you what they offer in Canada and is Treasure HD one of your three Voom favorites?


----------



## TNGTony

James Long said:


> Forget the analogy as long as you remember the point: The seller sets the prices. You don't have to buy. Even if that seller is the only source or all sellers use the same tactics to set prices you don't have to buy.
> 
> Perhaps some government agency should look at whether or not there is a crime involved in the way prices are set and packaging is done. Perhaps not.
> 
> I wouldn't mind if E* offered a la carte as an option ... but it is hardly an option if the government steps in and requires a la carte and regulates the process to death.


Again, James... apply that to ANYTHING else other than TV channels and see how well it works.

You can only buy a gallon of gas along with a 12 pack of 10w40 oil. You don't have to buy if you don't want to.

You can only buy milk with a tub of butter and a hunk of cheese. You don't have to buy it if you don't want to.

You can only buy water from your provider if you buy a complete tea service and the specialty tea. You cannot buy tea or coffee unless you buy the water.

Again, if this were the case you BETCHA the government would step in and even you would be for it! Packaging is fine with me, but give people the OPTION!

See ya
Tony


----------



## FTA Michael

Multichannel News article: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6402946.html

referencing the Rocky Mountain News, which "first reported it" :sure: in this article: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5230345,00.html

Personally, I find it amusing that a 6+% increase for most subscribers translates/averages to a "3%" increase in the headlines. Which tells me that (a) AT60/100 is a real bargain, for 2007 anyway, and (b) E*'s getting better at spinning its rate increases.


----------



## hildred

is there a list for the new top 200 channel


----------



## Mikey

hildred said:


> is there a list for the new top 200 channel


Yeah, same list as the AT120 now.


----------



## jrb531

Steve Mehs said:


> To continue with the food analogies (Sorry Michael ) when I go to BK and order my Triple Whopper meal, they charge extra for the good stuff, bacon and cheese (HBO and Showtime) but don't reduce the price when I tell them no crap, lettuce and tomato (Lifetime and MTV). I don't want lettuce and tomato, I don't eat vegetables, but I still have to pay for it anyway whether I eat it or not . I think a la carte in the multichannel video provider market is a bad idea, I'm 100% against it, unless existing packaging structure are kept fully in tact. I like to channel surf, in an a la carte system, I wound not pay for HGTV or Fine Living, but yes occasionally I watch those channels, because I find something interesting on them. Cartoon Network is crap, but I enjoy the 3:00AM showing of Family Guy. WAAAAAAHHHH Why do I have to pay (a la carte) for Cartoon Network when I only watch one show. *Sniffle*
> 
> If you must have a la cart, it say do it the right way, not per channel, but per show. Move to an IPTV based system of TV On Demand a la iTunes, where shows are $1.99 an episode, commercial free. Older shows can be had for $0.99 per episode, new hot shows for $2.99. This is an example only. Each production studio should be able to charge as much as they please. If Alliance Atlantis feels they can get $4.99 for an episode of CSI, go for it. This way no can one whine about paying for stuff they don't want.


I am going to guess that the people who are against ala-cart or theme packages are those who subscribe to everything. Right now their costs are lower per channel because of the current system. Clearly any other system would force people to pay their fair share and this scares people.

No matter how you try and sugar-coat it the simple fact is that those of us who watch only a few channels are screwed because they package those few channels in each tier and force us to subsidize channels we do not want.

I dare... yes I say "dare" anyone to find fault in "my" prefered compromise:

Using a 150 "real" channel system and not counting the HBO's: (numbers not exact)

1. Package #1 = 50 channel "base" package = $10
2. Package #2 = 25 channel "movie" package = $10
3. Package #3 = 25 channel "kids" package = $10
4. Package #3 = 25 channel "sports" package = $10
5. Package #4 = 25 channel "family" package = $10

Now everyone pays a $15 up front distribution fee. 
Subscribe to 4 packages and get a 5% discount
Subscribe to 5 packages and get a 10% discount

Now the numbers would need to be adjusted but in this system you still keep the current system intact but allow "some" freedom of choice. You are rewarded if you subscribe to multiple packages (at least 4) and the revenue would be about the same.

Granny would not have to subscribe to the sports packages and joe the jock would not have to subscribe to the kids package. As channels are added they would be placed in the appropriate package and rates would rise and fall for each package differently depending on the content.

Total prices would be:

1 pack = $25
2 packs = $35
3 packs = $45
4 packs = $55 - 5% = $52.25
5 packs = $65 - 10% = $58.50

Now $$$ may need to be adjusted but how can anyone find fault with this system over what we have? While few people would subscribe to all the packages (I would guess most people would take 4 and leave off the one package they does not suit their tastes) just like the current most popular package is the 120, IMHO most people in the new system would take 3-4 packages.

While this is not ala-cart it at least makes sense. I'm sure someone will find some fault in this LOL but it does:

1. Keeps the same basic setup that rewards customers who take all the channels
2. Adds one additional package but sorts them in a more logical way
3. Allows people to mix and match packages - IE you do not need to subscribe to package 1,2 and 3 in order to get 4
5. Allows differnt packages to rise and fall in price depending on the content and the prices those channels charge. IE If ESPN wants to double it's fees each year they risk a backlash just like any other business if the price of the sports package goes too high and people start cancelling.

Comments?

-JB


----------



## Mike D-CO5

TNGTony said:


> Again, James... apply that to ANYTHING else other than TV channels and see how well it works.
> 
> You can only buy a gallon of gas along with a 12 pack of 10w40 oil. You don't have to buy if you don't want to.
> 
> You can only buy milk with a tub of butter and a hunk of cheese. You don't have to buy it if you don't want to.
> 
> You can only buy water from your provider if you buy a complete tea service and the specialty tea. You cannot buy tea or coffee unless you buy the water.
> 
> Again, if this were the case you BETCHA the government would step in and even you would be for it! Packaging is fine with me, but give people the OPTION!
> 
> See ya
> Tony


THat is exactly my point Tony. You can not buy one channels without buying 15 others. There is no freedom of choice in the matter. If you go to cable or Directv it is the same thing. Once again you are forced to choose a bundle or programming pack to get what you want which forces you up in price.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

jrb531 said:


> I am going to guess that the people who are against ala-cart or theme packages are those who subscribe to everything. Right now their costs are lower per channel because of the current system. Clearly any other system would force people to pay their fair share and this scares people.
> 
> No matter how you try and sugar-coat it the simple fact is that those of us who watch only a few channels are screwed because they package those few channels in each tier and force us to subsidize channels we do not want.
> 
> I dare... yes I say "dare" anyone to find fault in "my" prefered compromise:
> 
> Using a 150 "real" channel system and not counting the HBO's: (numbers not exact)
> 
> 1. Package #1 = 50 channel "base" package = $10
> 2. Package #2 = 25 channel "movie" package = $10
> 3. Package #3 = 25 channel "kids" package = $10
> 4. Package #3 = 25 channel "sports" package = $10
> 5. Package #4 = 25 channel "family" package = $10
> 
> Now everyone pays a $15 up front distribution fee.
> Subscribe to 4 packages and get a 5% discount
> Subscribe to 5 packages and get a 10% discount
> 
> Now the numbers would need to be adjusted but in this system you still keep the current system intact but allow "some" freedom of choice. You are rewarded if you subscribe to multiple packages (at least 4) and the revenue would be about the same.
> 
> Granny would not have to subscribe to the sports packages and joe the jock would not have to subscribe to the kids package. As channels are added they would be placed in the appropriate package and rates would rise and fall for each package differently depending on the content.
> 
> Total prices would be:
> 
> 1 pack = $25
> 2 packs = $35
> 3 packs = $45
> 4 packs = $55 - 5% = $52.25
> 5 packs = $65 - 10% = $58.50
> 
> Now $$$ may need to be adjusted but how can anyone find fault with this system over what we have? While few people would subscribe to all the packages (I would guess most people would take 4 and leave off the one package they does not suit their tastes) just like the current most popular package is the 120, IMHO most people in the new system would take 3-4 packages.
> 
> While this is not ala-cart it at least makes sense. I'm sure someone will find some fault in this LOL but it does:
> 
> 1. Keeps the same basic setup that rewards customers who take all the channels
> 2. Adds one additional package but sorts them in a more logical way
> 3. Allows people to mix and match packages - IE you do not need to subscribe to package 1,2 and 3 in order to get 4
> 5. Allows differnt packages to rise and fall in price depending on the content and the prices those channels charge. IE If ESPN wants to double it's fees each year they risk a backlash just like any other business if the price of the sports package goes too high and people start cancelling.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -JB


I see this giving the consumer back control of the price of their tv experience. It would force the providers of content to taper their price increases or risk a backlash of viewers who would drop them if not. I like this and I see it very similar to the Canadian Sat system theme packs. It would work if someone in congress forced the CHOICE in to the system.


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> So is there an end in sight for the price increases to fast food, groceries, power, phone, heating/cooling, music/CDs, and on and on and on? Or how about, is there an end in sight to the raises people are getting at their jobs?
> 
> Almost everything goes up in price on some regular basis along with inflation. Some things stay flat or go down, but most things keep up with inflation. Some folks are actually expecting basic economics to break down on a whim.
> 
> It doesn't. You could subscribe to the $20 DishFamily package and watch a few channels. For $40 you can watch a few more... for $50 a few more than that... and so forth. No one is forcing you to pay the $100 per month for that particular package.
> 
> Now if your basis of argument is that you can't get what you want for the price you want... well, that's a silly argument.
> 
> I want leather shoes for $5, but they don't cost that... Why is there no choice for me to pay $5 for leather shoes? Why won't the government step in and stop the overpricing on leather shoes?
> 
> Doesn't that sound silly?
> 
> That's what a lot of the "I want my channel for whatever I want to pay" comments sound like to many of us.


Now stop being silly... I cannot watch my favorite shows for only $20 because the channels are sprinkled throughout the packages with no logic other than to put just enough "must have" channels in each package. I even asked if they would allow me to add a single channel for $3-4 to any package and, of course, you found fault in that also.

As far as things "always" going up. No no they do not! Look at computers, TV's and others things that have either stayed the same or have come down over the years!

The cost to provide programming remains relatively fixed for most channels who do nothing but show reruns. One person watching costs as much as a zillion people watching so as more and more people subscribe to cable or Dish the cost should actually be going down!!!

Now yes I know this will not happen because saleries have to be paid and hardware kept up but saying that everything goes up so we just accept it? Tell you what... you give me "some" choice in the channels I want and I'll gladly pay whatever the cost of inflation is each year added to my bill.

Deal?

Basic economics also reflect that the more you sell the cheaper it "can" become. Each year Dish adds almost a million subscribers but the cost keeps going up. This is basic economics? Whatever pittance of new channels showing the same re-runs does not justify these increases.

-JB


----------



## Mike D-CO5

harsh said:


> Show me the BEV lineup you would pick and how much it costs and then we'll talk. My local Comcast used to play games with little packlets and it ended up costing $6.99 for a couple of channels that I wanted (and six that I didn't).
> 
> If you're going to assail Dish Network about unbundling, you shouldn't leave any of their direct competitors out of the discussion. If nobody is willing to stand up against the program providers, why should Dish Network be any different?You seem to have lost sight of the fact that the Platinum package was already at a $5 discount relative to the AEP package. It was known by many as a "loss leader" from the very beginning. Now the halo has gone away.
> 
> To be certain, the increase is greater than the rate of inflation. That is certainly something to ponder. Comcast says it is because they are having to build out. Dish Network and DirecTV are having to loft new satellites. Everybody is having to expand to offer the latest and greatest.
> 
> Are you subsidizing someone else? Maybe. Are you getting a better deal than you might from cable or DirecTV? Probably. Does it really matter to you what they offer in Canada and is Treasure HD one of your three Voom favorites?


 I'm sorry but if you subscribe to EVERYTHING including HD and you upgrade to their higher priced HD dvr you should get a $5.00 discount in your programming. It is wrong to not only hit us with a 5.00 programming price increase coupled with the loss of the $5.00 discount. It is just like the premium movie packs . IF you sub to more you get a bigger discount in your bundled price. They are making the wrong move here as I will never sub to AEP again or any movie packs and I have been a customer with both for 10 years next month. I am sure I 'm not alone in saying this.

IF you like paying year after year in increases then fine, but don't knock me for wanting to keep my tv bill low. ONce again this is the 7th price increase since 2000. I would be paying more than $20.00 more for AEP today then 7 years ago if I would have kept it. I shouldn't have to wrestle with the decision every year whether to drop programming and be hit by FEES to escape the increases.

Name me any satellite or cable company that has ever had a $10.00 price increase in one year? DISHNETWORK is the only one I can think of.


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> Because that is the price that has been set on viewing that channel. I assume you want to increase government interference in the private contracts. Personally when government steps in things tend to cost more (got to add the regulatory fee for policing the situation).
> 
> Go into Wal*Mart and throw a hissy fit because you can't buy a 42" HDTV for $99.99 (note decimal point). You are a consumer. You don't get to set the prices. You only get to choose whether or not that price is acceptable to you and either pay or walk away.
> 
> Welcome to your role in society.


Hmmm it seems that when they broke up Bell the prices did not go up *smiles*

While I'm a fan of letting the markets determine the price... in this case we have a monopoly of programmers who provide all the content who are fixing prices for all distributors so we have no compentition.

So yes in this case I wish the government would step in! There is no way it could possible get any worse and there is no way the programmers and distributors will police themselves because any choice will mean less $$$ for them.

Show me an alternative to the current system and I'll stop posting LOL. I have Cable, Dish and DTV and all three are within $$$'s of each other in price - why? Because the programmers have the real power here and they put the same contraints on the distributors no matter who you have.

-JB


----------



## richbogrow

jrb531 said:


> I am going to guess that the people who are against ala-cart or theme packages are those who subscribe to everything. Right now their costs are lower per channel because of the current system. Clearly any other system would force people to pay their fair share and this scares people.
> 
> No matter how you try and sugar-coat it the simple fact is that those of us who watch only a few channels are screwed because they package those few channels in each tier and force us to subsidize channels we do not want.
> 
> I dare... yes I say "dare" anyone to find fault in "my" prefered compromise:
> 
> Using a 150 "real" channel system and not counting the HBO's: (numbers not exact)
> 
> 1. Package #1 = 50 channel "base" package = $10
> 2. Package #2 = 25 channel "movie" package = $10
> 3. Package #3 = 25 channel "kids" package = $10
> 4. Package #3 = 25 channel "sports" package = $10
> 5. Package #4 = 25 channel "family" package = $10
> 
> Now everyone pays a $15 up front distribution fee.
> Subscribe to 4 packages and get a 5% discount
> Subscribe to 5 packages and get a 10% discount
> 
> Now the numbers would need to be adjusted but in this system you still keep the current system intact but allow "some" freedom of choice. You are rewarded if you subscribe to multiple packages (at least 4) and the revenue would be about the same.
> 
> Granny would not have to subscribe to the sports packages and joe the jock would not have to subscribe to the kids package. As channels are added they would be placed in the appropriate package and rates would rise and fall for each package differently depending on the content.
> 
> Total prices would be:
> 
> 1 pack = $25
> 2 packs = $35
> 3 packs = $45
> 4 packs = $55 - 5% = $52.25
> 5 packs = $65 - 10% = $58.50
> 
> Now $$$ may need to be adjusted but how can anyone find fault with this system over what we have? While few people would subscribe to all the packages (I would guess most people would take 4 and leave off the one package they does not suit their tastes) just like the current most popular package is the 120, IMHO most people in the new system would take 3-4 packages.
> 
> While this is not ala-cart it at least makes sense. I'm sure someone will find some fault in this LOL but it does:
> 
> 1. Keeps the same basic setup that rewards customers who take all the channels
> 2. Adds one additional package but sorts them in a more logical way
> 3. Allows people to mix and match packages - IE you do not need to subscribe to package 1,2 and 3 in order to get 4
> 5. Allows differnt packages to rise and fall in price depending on the content and the prices those channels charge. IE If ESPN wants to double it's fees each year they risk a backlash just like any other business if the price of the sports package goes too high and people start cancelling.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -JB


Sounds good to me. I assume that HD would be a separate package?


----------



## jrb531

TNGTony said:


> I really do not see why ANYONE would be oposed to a la carte as an *OPTION* to those of us that want HBO and "The Science Channel" and nothing more! If it costs me $10 less a month, it may still be a better deal for me if I "really" don't watch all the other crap!
> 
> See ya
> Tony


Because if you lower "our" bills then you raise theirs. Those "channel counters" want 10 zillion channels and know full well that if they ever had to pay their "fair share" their bills would go up.

I do not even advocate a true ala-cart system aside from maybe allowing you to add a missing channel or two to a package. I much prefer theme packs which seems like a no brainer to me. A nice "compromise" to the current system which still alows packages but at least would allow limited choice.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

FTA Michael said:


> Multichannel News article: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6402946.html
> 
> referencing the Rocky Mountain News, which "first reported it" :sure: in this article: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5230345,00.html
> 
> Personally, I find it amusing that a 6+% increase for most subscribers translates/averages to a "3%" increase in the headlines. Which tells me that (a) AT60/100 is a real bargain, for 2007 anyway, and (b) E*'s getting better at spinning its rate increases.


I, for one, will be dropping to the 60 package once the price increase hits. Next year my contract with Dish will be over and I will switch to either cable or At&T so I can get one bill for Pay TV, Internet and Phone. Most of my current viewing has switched over to Blockbuster anyway. If I could cancel HD right now I would. The "gee-wiz" look at HD is over. The reality of $20 a month for near zero programming has now hit.

-JB


----------



## TNGTony

jrb531 said:


> Because if you lower "our" bills then you raise theirs. Those "channel counters" want 10 zillion channels and know full well that if they ever had to pay their "fair share" their bills would go up.
> 
> I do not even advocate a true ala-cart system aside from maybe allowing you to add a missing channel or two to a package. I much prefer theme packs which seems like a no brainer to me. A nice "compromise" to the current system which still alows packages but at least would allow limited choice.
> 
> -JB


I still have yet to hear a convincing argument how allowing a la carte *as an option*, _in addition to_, *NOT* instead of, the current tier system would raise prices. If anything it would have the oposite effect!

Both the cable/satellite/fios systems and the channel programmers would want to entice you into keeping the packages and thus keep the prices in check.

I really believe this is more fear of the unkown than real honest-to-goodness preditions of gloom and doom.

BTW I currently subscribe to the everything pack and, if a la carte would be available I would probably still have "everything" as a package.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Hound

RSNs and HD RSNs should be a la carte by law. The decision whether to make this programming available is taken away from the consumer. The multi video provider does not want to pay the extra cost or pass it on to all subscribers so the subscribers who want the programming cannot get it. Or the owner of the programming is vertically integrated and withholds the programming. Examples are YES and CSN Philadelphia.


----------



## Roadking2003

Your link says local HD channels will be available for Austin in 2006. Do you know where I can find the status of this change? Or does anyone know when we will get local HD channels on Dish in Austin?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jrb531 said:


> Show me an alternative to the current system and I'll stop posting LOL. I have Cable, Dish and DTV and all three are within $$$'s of each other in price - why? Because the programmers have the real power here and they put the same contraints on the distributors no matter who you have.


I am very confused... In the above post you say you are paying for Cable, Dish, and DirecTV?



jrb531 said:


> Most of my current viewing has switched over to Blockbuster anyway.


And then here you say you are mostly watching movies from Blockbuster?

So... why are you paying for all TV sources when you admittedly are barely watching any of them? IF they are so overpriced and you hate the "choices" so much... this completely confuses me as to why you would subscribe to 3 different TV services that you barely watch.


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> I am very confused... In the above post you say you are paying for Cable, Dish, and DirecTV?
> 
> And then here you say you are mostly watching movies from Blockbuster?
> 
> So... why are you paying for all TV sources when you admittedly are barely watching any of them? IF they are so overpriced and you hate the "choices" so much... this completely confuses me as to why you would subscribe to 3 different TV services that you barely watch.


That was an "oops" *smiles* I have Dish 120 with HD and locals. Sorry about the confusion. Thinking one thing and typing another 

I meant that all three have the same systems as dictated by the programmers.

As far a movies go... yes I do watch most of my movies from Blockbuster. $17.99 a month and I get movies as soon as they come out, delivered to my door and I can watch them whenever I want. When finished with them I can either elect to drop them in the mail or stop by a local Blockbuster and trade them for new movies on the spot.

How HBO and the like can justify charging almost at much for movies that have been out for ages is beyond me. Of course they often do have some good original stuff but I just wait and order them via Blockbuster when the season comes out.

I get on average 20 new, just released movies per month with Blockbuster for $17.99 a month. Hard to justify HBO, Showtime and the rest with this type of system. Yes it was nice to see some old movies when I channel surfed but not at the price they charge.

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jrb531 said:


> Now stop being silly... I cannot watch my favorite shows for only $20 because the channels are sprinkled throughout the packages with no logic other than to put just enough "must have" channels in each package. I even asked if they would allow me to add a single channel for $3-4 to any package and, of course, you found fault in that also.


What makes you think this would change with a la carte channels? Programmers today with multiple channels sprinkle their programs around to different channels so if you don't buy their entire suite you miss something. Even if legislation could force a la carte for channels, it couldn't force them to put programming on a particular channel... so you'd be right back where you started.



jrb531 said:


> As far as things "always" going up. No no they do not! Look at computers, TV's and others things that have either stayed the same or have come down over the years!


I never said everything goes up... Some things stay the same, but lots of things increase. Video game consoles come down in price eventually, but new video games keep getting more expensive. DVD players come down in price, but new DVD movies get more expensive.

Movie ticket prices at the theater increase over the years too... Salaries for employees go up (I'm sure you want your raise too) and that affects costs. And if a business does not make profits, it doesn't remain in business long.

Start your own company, and never ever increase prices as time goes by and see how long you stay in business.



jrb531 said:


> The cost to provide programming remains relatively fixed for most channels who do nothing but show reruns. One person watching costs as much as a zillion people watching so as more and more people subscribe to cable or Dish the cost should actually be going down!!!


Hey, so... that means my local movie theater should just charge for admitting the first person through the door and let everyone else in for free right? Because it costs them the same to run the movie for one person as it does for 20 or 100 people! You can't simply make a statement like you do and have it mean anything.

Just because the cost is the same... doesn't mean they can get that money from just one person. If enough people do not subscribe to the channel/service, then they don't get their money and can't pay for the "fixed cost" or salaries or improvement for the future or anything else... and then that channel/service goes away.



jrb531 said:


> Basic economics also reflect that the more you sell the cheaper it "can" become. Each year Dish adds almost a million subscribers but the cost keeps going up. This is basic economics? Whatever pittance of new channels showing the same re-runs does not justify these increases.


I already have a phone... my phone service does not get cheaper every year just because I already have it and the "fixed cost" is the same... Using your reasoning, my phone bill should go down every year that I have it because I have been there so long and there are more phone customers now than last year.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I saw a couple of posts stating something like "give the power back to consumers"... or something equivalent to that.

Consumers have the power already. Don't buy what you don't want... don't pay for something that you feel is overpriced. Cancel your service, organize your friends to do the same, and maybe maybe enough of you agree that can make a difference.

Right now it would appear that the majority of people, even with the price increases we don't like, feel the current system is giving us the most entertainment for our money.


----------



## patmurphey

If you take E*'s current cost structure - infrastructure, employees, cost of content, subsidies for hardware, advertising - compared to revenue - package fees and equipment rental, etc. - the difference is profit (or loss). If some customers can cherry pick the content of the packages then something has to give. Either content will have to be reduced or prices will have to go up for the packages. Its pretty simple to me. 

I for one like the wide variety of choices available with the current system - I buy them all - and I am constantly finding new and different things to watch, things I wouldn't have known about to choose in advance.


----------



## jrb531

patmurphey said:


> If you take E*'s current cost structure - infrastructure, employees, cost of content, subsidies for hardware, advertising - compared to revenue - package fees and equipment rental, etc. - the difference is profit (or loss). If some customers can cherry pick the content of the packages then something has to give. Either content will have to be reduced or prices will have to go up for the packages. Its pretty simple to me.
> 
> I for one like the wide variety of choices available with the current system - I buy them all - and I am constantly finding new and different things to watch, things I wouldn't have known about to choose in advance.


Once again proving my point that if you subscribe to everything you do not want anything changed that would make you pay your fair share instead of the current system which forced people into paying for what they do not want in order to keep prices low for the "channel counters"

You are correct in that they would have to drop channels that could not stand on their own and/or charge "real" prices for channels instead of the forced subscription rates they charge now.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> Right now it would appear that the majority of people, even with the price increases we don't like, feel the current system is giving us the most entertainment for our money.


How do you figure?

It could also be said that most people "swallow" the current system because we do not have a choice.

You would need to try both systems to let people see which works better. We have NEVER had ala-cart, theme packages or any other system. Some will say that years and years and years ago we had a limited form of ala-cart but with less than 25% of the channels we have now and only a very limited number of channels included in that old ala-cart setup from "some" providers... it is not a fair test.

Back then you did not have single programmers controlling dozens of channels that you do now. Each channel was separate from the others with no special contracts that told the distributors how to re-sell the channel.

I guess I can also proclaim that all people love high gas prices because we continue to pay them! After all we could all just stop using cars 

-JB


----------



## DoyleS

Ala Carte programming is available if you really want it. You just have to use a BUD instead of D*, E* or Comcast. If you want to know what ala carte programming costs look like, here is a link to one of the providers. You will need to figure in the cost of purchasing all of your own equipment.

http://www.bigdish.com/satala.htm

..Doyle


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> I never said everything goes up... Some things stay the same, but lots of things increase. Video game consoles come down in price eventually, but new video games keep getting more expensive. DVD players come down in price, but new DVD movies get more expensive.


Back in 1980 new Atari VCS (aka 2600) video games cost $50 - 26 years later they cost.... $50 (some a bit more, some a bit less) but in 26 years the price has stayed the same every with all that inflation.

DVD players were $1000 10 years ago... now they are $50
DVD movies were $30 10 years ago... now they are $10-$15

Where are DVD movies getting more expensive?

If you adjust for cost of inflation, the more you sell the cheaper it gets.... this seems to work in almost every industry EXCEPT pay tv!

The more you sell the more it costs and if you do not like it.... well cancel all Pay TV..

See... we really do have choice in pay TV.

-JB


----------



## koralis

Jim5506 said:


> If you want satellite programming to look like OTA (few choices and poor quality), by all means push a-la-carte.


Lets do it then... 80% of my TV watching is OTA due to the good quality. An infinite number of choices of crap programming is worth less than 10 channels of good programming.


----------



## jonsnow

La carte would be good for competition which produces quality. Besides Battlestar and numerous other of Sci-Fi offerings, I do not see queer eye for the straight guy or numerous other crap shows beating either survivor, lost or 24 in quality.


----------



## Richard King

DoyleS said:


> Ala Carte programming is available if you really want it. You just have to use a BUD instead of D*, E* or Comcast. If you want to know what ala carte programming costs look like, here is a link to one of the providers. You will need to figure in the cost of purchasing all of your own equipment.
> 
> http://www.bigdish.com/satala.htm
> 
> ..Doyle


Excellent point. There ARE options in pay tv. Buy a big dish and subscribe to whatever you want. If you subscribe from Dish or Direct you are helping to pay for the infrastructure that is dedicated to each of those systems. Not so (well not to a large extent) with a big dish. The satellites and uplinks are used for all cable companies (and satellite companies) in the country, so infrastructure cost is spread out much more. Of course, you have to provide some of that infrastructure yourself, namely an (relatively) expensive dish, an expensive receiver, an expensive descrambler and a bit more of that expensive item called landscape, but it can be done.


----------



## mplsjeffm

How about puting channels in smaller blocks. You could have one block of channels that had all the sports channels. I block those now because I don't watchen. I still pay for them. I bet those sports channelscomprise the largest of cost to E* and us


----------



## James Long

TNGTony said:


> Again, James... apply that to ANYTHING else other than TV channels and see how well it works.
> 
> You can only buy a gallon of gas along with a 12 pack of 10w40 oil. You don't have to buy if you don't want to.
> 
> You can only buy milk with a tub of butter and a hunk of cheese. You don't have to buy it if you don't want to.
> 
> You can only buy water from your provider if you buy a complete tea service and the specialty tea. You cannot buy tea or coffee unless you buy the water.
> 
> Again, if this were the case you BETCHA the government would step in and even you would be for it! Packaging is fine with me, but give people the OPTION!


Then I suppose we should wait for the government to interfere in the satellite/MVDS business. Fortunately in the other markets mentioned the standard way of doing business isn't to bundle and if you found a provider that forced bundling the next provider down the road probably wouldn't.

Cable has bundled forever, it seems. DBS satellite just carries the same common business practice to a new platform. And as a mature industry it probably would have been better to address bundling at the start than now, more than a decade after those common practices were set in the business.

(Somewhere I have the rules for tiers on Cable. Can't find them at the moment.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jrb531 said:


> How do you figure?
> 
> It could also be said that most people "swallow" the current system because we do not have a choice.


You ALWAYS have a choice. Quit wasting your money if you feel so strongly that you are wasting it. Why keep spending the money if you are this mad about it? I can't see how you are enjoying your TV with as much time as you spend complaining about how ripped off you feel. Seriously, cancel it and save the money and feel better!



jrb531 said:


> You would need to try both systems to let people see which works better. We have NEVER had ala-cart, theme packages or any other system. Some will say that years and years and years ago we had a limited form of ala-cart but with less than 25% of the channels we have now and only a very limited number of channels included in that old ala-cart setup from "some" providers... it is not a fair test.


Why is it not a fair comparison? Because you don't think it is fair? Cable began essentially as an a la carte setup... and as more channels were added, customers found the deals were better if they bought more channels for a discount... and eventually we migrated to the system we have today where big bundles save money on a per-channel basis.



jrb531 said:


> I guess I can also proclaim that all people love high gas prices because we continue to pay them! After all we could all just stop using cars


You are twisting what I said. Nobody loves high prices. We would all love to have free satellite TV and free gasoline! But that isn't going to happen! So... each of us determines how much we feel comfortable paying for TV... and as long as we feel entertained for the money we spend, it is ok even if we don't like the price increase.

As for your gas example... No, we don't love high gas prices but clearly we love to drive more than we hate the price of gas... otherwise we would ride bikes more, or have more public transportation, or live closer to where we work/shop, or walk, or buy more gas-efficient cars (no more SUVs, Hummers, etc.)... but the consumer keeps buying gas-guzzling vehicles and driving all over the place... so clearly the price of gasoline has not yet reached the point where we say "too much".

I assure you, when/if the price of gasoline truly gets too high... there will be a backlash and people will stop driving so much OR develop another fuel or means of transportation.

You chose a good example because it illustrates what I have been saying about satellite too. Thanks!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

It is also worth mentioning again... that the "I want a la carte and know it can work" camp doesn't just want a la carte. They want a la carte, free equipment, $2 per channel fees and no overhead, and a small DBS dish.

They don't move to Canada where they say it is better for choice... they don't spend the money in a BUD setup where they can get more a la carte options... so even when choices are available they don't pick them.

Instead of going to Burger King for a Whopper or McDonalds for a Big Mac... they seem determined to go to Wendy's and buy a Single burger, but complain that it costs more than a Big Mac and demand that Wendy's serve them a Whopper because they know it can be done.

Why not choose from the available a la carte services?


----------



## minnow

I do wonder if some of those who are so anti-free choice here are ones that also realize that without the entire subscriber base subsidizing them, that they are going to pay more, and maybe a lot more. Wonder how much say, ESPN would charge the true believers if 50% of the current total subscriber base, if given the choice, would shut off the ESPN suite of overpriced channels in a nano-second. But as long as the naysayers can keep the rest of the flock corralled, then they retain the upper-hand and lower subscription rates.


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> I am going to guess that the people who are against ala-cart or theme packages are those who subscribe to everything. Right now their costs are lower per channel because of the current system. Clearly any other system would force people to pay their fair share and this scares people.


Are you saying that you DON'T want to pay YOUR fair share?

BTW: I'm not against a la carte - I am only against a la carte being IMPOSED by the government. If a la carte works why are MVDS providers not fighting to offer it?


jrb531 said:


> No matter how you try and sugar-coat it the simple fact is that those of us who watch only a few channels are screwed because they package those few channels in each tier and force us to subsidize channels we do not want.


Again I say: Welcome to your role in society. 

Your "fan fiction" proposals for a la carte may or may not work. Until you are in control of a satellite company or those that are adopt your view that is all this discussion will remain ... "fan fiction" wishes of the way that it "should" be in someone's opinion. Might as well write a set of laws for the first moon colony.


jrb531 said:


> Hmmm it seems that when they broke up Bell the prices did not go up *smiles*


"They" broke up the Bell System? Hard to tell nowadays. How many baby bells are left or have they all remerged into bigger companies?

AT&T Bell was broken up because someone came along and said that THEY could do better and was willing to offer a competitive arrangement. With the monopoly design of telephone service (your local provider did it all) a door had to be opened for the competition. Not true for satellite, which already operates in competition between the two main carriers and against ground based cable and other systems.

Don't get me started on the Bell breakup and all the resulting stupidity that has led to. The idea that a "competitive" local exchange carrier can set up in a town, use the physical plant that the "incumbant" local exchange carrier has invested in over decades with little investment of their own and force repairs to be done to said lines by the "incumbant" local exchange company by their employees who are not permitted to identify themselves as employees of the "incumbant" company --- it is just crazy.

Imagine a fifth satellite company DEMANDING space on 119° with the government REQUIRING E* and D* to rent space there for $150,000 per month (a base rate) per transponder for as many transponders as the fifth satellite company needed for their content. That is the arrangement CLECs have with ILECs. Government interference requiring the ILEC to provide service to the CLEC at a base rate.

Make the CLECs string their own wire and build out their own plant - just like wireless carriers are required to build out their own networks.

Hmmm ... looks like you got me started anyways. 


jrb531 said:


> Show me an alternative to the current system and I'll stop posting LOL.


I highly doubt that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

minnow said:


> I do wonder if some of those who are so anti-free choice here are ones that also realize that without the entire subscriber base subsidizing them, that they are going to pay more, and maybe a lot more. Wonder how much say, ESPN would charge the true believers if 50% of the current total subscriber base, if given the choice, would shut off the ESPN suite of overpriced channels in a nano-second. But as long as the naysayers can keep the rest of the flock corralled, then they retain the upper-hand and lower subscription rates.


We do realize it... but what many of the a la carte supporters don't realize is that many of the channels they list as being their "favorite" would also have to increase in price, and likely would suffer and fail if that price became too high.

ESPN is not the cause of all the price increases, despite what some folks would have you think. All channels have some increase in price from time to time... and those add up to the several dollar a year price increases we pay. ESPN did not go up $3 this year... a bunch of stuff happened to add up to that price increase.

Now, I might pay $5 or even $7.50 for ESPN if it became a la carte and that was the cost of that suite... and some other folks might pay $10 for it (I wouldn't)... but ESPN has a much larger customerbase that would be willing to pay a la carte and keep it from hitting that $10 price point... but Lifetime, Boomerang, Sci-Fi, and many other smaller channels would not be able to get that kind of viewership.

What you would most likely see with a pure a la carte system is choice fading away. You think you don't have choice now... but you really wouldn't have choice as the channels go away. And what about new channels? Today a new channel could ask 50 cents and placement in AT60 from Dish and get more than 6 million dollars... but a la carte, that channel might have to start at $10 or higher and who is going to sign up for a brand new $10 channel that just started?

Less new channels, less variety, and the same bill is what many of us suspect would be the reality of an a la carte world.

If you really only want to watch 1 or 2 or even 5 channels, then pay TV is probably not for you... for the rest of us, we have cheaper bills because we are all willing to pay a little for programming we don't watch so stuff we do watch will be affordable.

The same principle goes into paying your taxes. I pay taxes that go to fund education but I do not have any children. Some of my taxes pay other people's medical bills, but I haven't been sick in years. Some of my taxes pay for roads and bridges that I will never drive upon during my lifetime.

If our government really stopped to think about it... forcing an a la carte system on the public would only open the door to asking for an a la carte tax system, and nobody would want that... but why pay for what we aren't using, right? You pay for the roads you drive on, pay your medical bills, and pay for your kids education... I'll pay for what I use.

Nobody likes toll roads... but those are like a la carte... and they are more expensive to drive on than your regular roads are, aren't they?


----------



## James Long

Beginning in February E* will be offering a new a la carte price plan:

For *only $109.99 per month** you can watch _or_ record *any two channels you want* (from any channel in the 2006 DishHD Platinum package). *You pick the two channels* and when they are active on your account. Change channels any time 24/7 via your "set top" receiver.
(* Leased receiver required - $199 for installation. Discounts may apply for new subscribers. Other restrictions may apply.)

Plus: If you want the ability to watch more than two channels at a time you can lease a additional receivers for only $6.00 more per month.

Customers on a budget may limit their choices of channels. For example a customer who wishes to limit their choices to a basic choice of 75 SD video channels plus 32 stereo audio channels can do so and only pay $29.99 per month ($34.99 with locals)*. Other intermediate choices are also available.
(* Discounts may apply for new subscribers. Restrictions and additional fees may apply.)

Watch for more great deals from Dish Network ... Your TV - Your Choice!


----------



## koralis

HDMe said:


> What you would most likely see with a pure a la carte system is choice fading away. You think you don't have choice now... but you really wouldn't have choice as the channels go away. And what about new channels? Today a new channel could ask 50 cents and placement in AT60 from Dish and get more than 6 million dollars... but a la carte, that channel might have to start at $10 or higher and who is going to sign up for a brand new $10 channel that just started?


Here's my base problem with the system as-is... consider this scenario:

Charlie adds 20 channels to AT60, increases the price by $5 and declares it a great value despite whether anyone will ever watch those channels.

Your choices: 
1) Pay the extra $5.
2) Switch providers 
3) Switch to OTA only.

#2 doesn't work because when one provider bumps up prices, they all do. The only thing charlie cares about is having a package that has a good selection for the same price floor as the competition so that people don't leave based on price. Increasing the number of channels improves selection, so as long as cost is in line with the competition he wins by doing this.

#3 is satisfying in terms of making a stand, but unsatisfying in that while you may have been willing to pay $40 for 5 channelsthat you'll watch, that option was removed from you.

#1 is what everyone is basically forced to do if they want to watch any non-network programming.

A lot of the grousing would go away if the providers allow you to stick with AT60 at the previous rates instead of bumping up to the next tier along with the associated price increases. Not that that's going to happen, because it gets rid of the primary way that the providers increase revenue going forward.


----------



## James Long

If you can come up with a way of stopping the provider's costs from increasing (satellite and channel providers) then we can start talking about freezing the costs we pay for their services. EVERYTHING goes up.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

James Long said:


> Beginning in February E* will be offering a new a la carte price plan:
> 
> For *only $109.99 per month** you can watch _or_ record *any two channels you want* (from any channel in the 2006 DishHD Platinum package). *You pick the two channels* and when they are active on your account. Change channels any time 24/7 via your "set top" receiver.
> (* Leased receiver required - $199 for installation. Discounts may apply for new subscribers. Other restrictions may apply.)
> 
> Plus: If you want the ability to watch more than two channels at a time you can lease a additional receivers for only $6.00 more per month.
> 
> Customers on a budget may limit their choices of channels. For example a customer who wishes to limit their choices to a basic choice of 75 SD video channels plus 32 stereo audio channels can do so and only pay $29.99 per month ($34.99 with locals)*. Other intermediate choices are also available.
> (* Discounts may apply for new subscribers. Restrictions and additional fees may apply.)
> 
> Watch for more great deals from Dish Network ... Your TV - Your Choice!


 Okay are you being sarcastic? Because it actually sounds like something Dish would do considering their $10.00 price increase on the Plat customers.


----------



## minnow

HdMe,

If the small niche channels can't survive then so be it. It's called competition and free market forces. If a business doesn't provide what the mass audience wants then it will shrivel up and blow away. The current business model of broadcasting is not based on providing decent and original programming for the masses but rather getting a cable or satellite company to carry your station and then sit back and wait for the competition to pick it up because the other guy's got it and now you need it to stay competitive. "We've got over 200 stations available" yeah 180 stations of music, Home shopping and redundant programming crap. I think most of us can agree that many different channels now offer the same limited programming. How many times do we need "That 70's Show" or "King of Queens" or "Everybody Loves Raymond" showing the same freaking episode ad nauseum on multiple channels - many at the same time none the less. Maybe we don't need all of these different program providers broadcasting the same 20 shows. Just maybe competition would force these broadcasters to do something different to attract and retain an audience. Do we really need multiple ESPN's ? If they can support themselves with a sustainable paying subscriber base then great, but why the hell should I be expected to subsidize the showing of 20 year old college bowl games. 
To be honest, I'd pay as much as I'm paying now for just the core channels that I actually utilize. I bet that I don't watch 80% of what is available and wouldn't miss it one little bit.


----------



## nataraj

minnow said:


> How many times do we need "That 70's Show" or "King of Queens" or "Everybody Loves Raymond" showing the same freaking episode ad nauseum on multiple channels - many at the same time none the less. Maybe we don't need all of these different program providers broadcasting the same 20 shows.


I think eventually we don't need any channels other than the ones that are live. Everything else - movies, tv shows etc etc - should be VOD.

The current structure is just a holdover from old times ....

Ofcourse we had these discussions in that old "a la carte / family tier" thread.


----------



## James Long

Imagine a successful channel ... something like CNN. Start a competitive channel ... something like Fox News. In a full a la carte environment individual subscribers could choose between those two channels, or they could choose neither or both. If that choice were given today there would be plenty of people who would go one way or the other and be happy.

But roll back the clock a few years to when Fox News was just starting. Sure there would be those who through advertising or a deep devotion to Rupert Murdoch would have paid specifically for that channel. Perhaps over time Fox News would have grown to the stature it has today ... but it would have taken much longer.

The tier system allows a program provider to deal in thousands or millions of viewers instead of trying to convince each individual viewer that their service is worth paying for sight unseen. They can deal at the top - with the people ultimately providing the bandwidth / channel space for the channel - instead of needing to convince BOTH the platform provider (E*/D*/Cable) that the channel was worth carrying and would bring profit as well as the individual end viewer.

I doubt if many channels would make it past the hurdles. Too many people saying "I've got CNN, why do I need to pay for Fox News" to even give the second channel a chance. Too many platform providers making the decision of whether or not to give the new channel space on their system with deep promises or budget killing charges for new upstarts at a time when they can least afford it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

minnow said:


> To be honest, I'd pay as much as I'm paying now for just the core channels that I actually utilize. I bet that I don't watch 80% of what is available and wouldn't miss it one little bit.


So then why complain? If you are willing to pay the same price as you pay now, but for less channels... then where is the problem?

Most folks don't seem to realize that the reality of the situation is.... right now we pay $50 for 150 channels (example, not actual fact)... but after a la carte settles in you could end up paying the same $50 for only 50 channels.

So if the money is the same... why not have more channels?

If you go into Burger King and the Whopper is $3.99 OR they have a special 2-for-$4 sale where you can get twice the burger for the same price... why would you not be ok buying the 2-for special even if you can't eat it all?

Which gets back to the ultimate of what I keep saying... IF you feel your monthly money is well spent on the channels you do watch... then no problem and no reason to complain even if you aren't watching other channels. IF you feel you are paying too much for the channels you are watching, then you need to make a choice and buy less channels or cancel altogether or something.


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> Cable has bundled forever, it seems. DBS satellite just carries the same common business practice to a new platform. And as a mature industry it probably would have been better to address bundling at the start than now, more than a decade after those common practices were set in the business.
> 
> (Somewhere I have the rules for tiers on Cable. Can't find them at the moment.)


Once upon a time (you all know this LOL) technology was such that they only had a very limited number of ways to scramble the signal. This "forced" groups of channels into packages because old 70's tech did not allow you to turn on and off individual channels. They could turn on and off different scrambling methods but only had a few thus they had the basic channels that everyone had unscrambled and the next two packages each were scrambled a different way so they could turn on and off the next two packages.

Thus the three package system was born. 30 years later we are still in this system for no other reason than it makes them more $$$ because as they add more channels they raise the price and thus force us into paying for more than many of us would like.

We "take it" because of the old "it's always been this way" ideology.

Add a few packages and make them themed and I would be happy. Allow us to add a single channel from another package would also work. The fact that they refuse any form of compromise says alot.

That family package, no matter how you spin it, is nothing more than Dish and the programmers coming up with a way to head off ala-cart or "any" change to the system.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

Richard King said:


> Excellent point. There ARE options in pay tv. Buy a big dish and subscribe to whatever you want. If you subscribe from Dish or Direct you are helping to pay for the infrastructure that is dedicated to each of those systems. Not so (well not to a large extent) with a big dish. The satellites and uplinks are used for all cable companies (and satellite companies) in the country, so infrastructure cost is spread out much more. Of course, you have to provide some of that infrastructure yourself, namely an (relatively) expensive dish, an expensive receiver, an expensive descrambler and a bit more of that expensive item called landscape, but it can be done.


Come on now... let's be real. How many people are even able to put up a BUD even if they wanted to spend the $$$?

You might as well tell us to start our own network (some have LOL)

BUD's are not an option to most people living in larger cities so I guess your next suggesttion would be for those who do not like the current system to move to a farm 

-JB


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> You ALWAYS have a choice. Quit wasting your money if you feel so strongly that you are wasting it. Why keep spending the money if you are this mad about it? I can't see how you are enjoying your TV with as much time as you spend complaining about how ripped off you feel. Seriously, cancel it and save the money and feel better!


Yes and my choice is to try and do something about it instead of just tossing up my hands and saying "oh well... nothing will ever change" How do things change? When had big business EVER made consumer friendy change that may hurt their bottom line without being forced to? What is good for them (more $$$) is bad for us because the $$$ comes from us and while I expect them to make a profit I do not expect them to keep shoving more and more channels at me and thus raising my bills. I DO NOT WANT ANY MORE CHANNELS! If "you" do then "you" pay for them. How is this unfair?



> Why is it not a fair comparison? Because you don't think it is fair? Cable began essentially as an a la carte setup... and as more channels were added, customers found the deals were better if they bought more channels for a discount... and eventually we migrated to the system we have today where big bundles save money on a per-channel basis.


Ala-cart was allowed way way way back when the programmers only had individual channels. When they packaged channels the price was still low and you could still ala-cart "some" channels. Ala-cart did not end because consumers stopped wanting them. They stopped because they made more $$$ not offering them! They knew full well that many people would only subscribe to the few channels they wanted and as the packages got larger they made more $$$ making us pay for the entire package. Why do I have to subscribe to package A and B just to get C? Answer this one.



> I assure you, when/if the price of gasoline truly gets too high... there will be a backlash and people will stop driving so much OR develop another fuel or means of transportation.


Ahhh but you see people did complain. I suppose it there was a gasoline forum you would be posting how much of a deal gas is even at twice the price *smiles* What keeps the companies in check is public outcry. You can bet your sweet-backside the few large oil companies would raise the prices MUCH higher if the public would accet it. This is the very same thing with pay TV. They get away with these underhanded tactics because WE take it. There is ZERO reason to not have the channels set up in logical themes but they know that they make more $$$ by mixing them up and requiring you to take A and B to get C. What if I only liked the channels in package C. Why can't I subscribe to just C?

The entire setup is just silly and how people can defend it makes me wonder (insert Black helecopters LOL) how many paid "Pay TV" shills are in this thread tight now. I understand people who are channel counters being fearfull that they might someday have to pay their fair share but how can anyone be against at least making the packages themed and not require A and B to get C?

-JB


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> It is also worth mentioning again... that the "I want a la carte and know it can work" camp doesn't just want a la carte. They want a la carte, free equipment, $2 per channel fees and no overhead, and a small DBS dish.
> 
> They don't move to Canada where they say it is better for choice... they don't spend the money in a BUD setup where they can get more a la carte options... so even when choices are available they don't pick them.
> 
> Instead of going to Burger King for a Whopper or McDonalds for a Big Mac... they seem determined to go to Wendy's and buy a Single burger, but complain that it costs more than a Big Mac and demand that Wendy's serve them a Whopper because they know it can be done.
> 
> Why not choose from the available a la carte services?


That is not true. You read my proposal for "theme" packages. What do you think of that proposal? Seems like a fair compromise.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> If you really only want to watch 1 or 2 or even 5 channels, then pay TV is probably not for you... for the rest of us, we have cheaper bills because we are all willing to pay a little for programming we don't watch so stuff we do watch will be affordable.


Why?

I posted this before:

If I paid 100% for my own equipment
If I paid 100% for my own install
If I paid Dish the "same" accounting fee they charged others
If I paid the programmers the same "ala-cart" fee they find acceptable for BUDS

Then why can I not have one channel?

Why?

Why is Pzy TV not for me? If I love Sci-Fi and only want to watch that one channel then why will they not take my $$$?

Well I'll tell you why (you knew this was coming LOL)

They know full well that they will make more $$$ trying to "force" those with limited TV viewing to pay for an entire package. They are betting that they can make more $$$ accepting that some people will not subscribe but more people will.

It's NOT fair and just like the government had to step in and "force" the phone companies to offer unbungled services (if it was up to them you could only get phone service in huge expensive packages!) the government now has to step in and fix this mess.

No matter what you think of the phone companies and the "mess" they are in I still can call across the country for pennies instead of dollars per minute and my DSL is $14.95 a month where it was $75 a month years ago with IDSN at 1/10 the speed.

Competition works! It may have a bumpy start but once things settle we are all better off.

What competition do the programmers have?

-JB


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> Imagine a successful channel ... something like CNN. Start a competitive channel ... something like Fox News. In a full a la carte environment individual subscribers could choose between those two channels, or they could choose neither or both. If that choice were given today there would be plenty of people who would go one way or the other and be happy.
> 
> But roll back the clock a few years to when Fox News was just starting. Sure there would be those who through advertising or a deep devotion to Rupert Murdoch would have paid specifically for that channel. Perhaps over time Fox News would have grown to the stature it has today ... but it would have taken much longer.
> 
> The tier system allows a program provider to deal in thousands or millions of viewers instead of trying to convince each individual viewer that their service is worth paying for sight unseen. They can deal at the top - with the people ultimately providing the bandwidth / channel space for the channel - instead of needing to convince BOTH the platform provider (E*/D*/Cable) that the channel was worth carrying and would bring profit as well as the individual end viewer.
> 
> I doubt if many channels would make it past the hurdles. Too many people saying "I've got CNN, why do I need to pay for Fox News" to even give the second channel a chance. Too many platform providers making the decision of whether or not to give the new channel space on their system with deep promises or budget killing charges for new upstarts at a time when they can least afford it.


If you wanted to start up a new channel you provide it for the first year "very" cheaply or even free. If you have the better product people will swtich. This is no different than other forms of startups in which free samples and low price will get people to "sample" them in the hope that they will switch.

If both products are similar then usually people will take the cheapist (thus keeping prices in check) and if your product is inferior it goes bye bye.

This is exactly what the Pay TV industry needs!

-JB


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> So then why complain? If you are willing to pay the same price as you pay now, but for less channels... then where is the problem?
> 
> Most folks don't seem to realize that the reality of the situation is.... right now we pay $50 for 150 channels (example, not actual fact)... but after a la carte settles in you could end up paying the same $50 for only 50 channels.
> 
> So if the money is the same... why not have more channels?


If they added the new channels to new packages thus keeping the old packages cheaper then add as many new channels as you want. Because they keep adding new channels year after year to the same existing packages they are forcing up the price for everyone.

By the same logic why not just offer one huge package with all the channels? Would this not be cheaper per channel? Who decided that 3 or 4 packages was the magic number? If more is always better then by all means do away with the extra packages.

Right?

-JB

P.S. Some of us realise that the real issue here is $$$ per hour watched and "not" $$$ per number of channels available.


----------



## TNGTony

James Long said:


> But roll back the clock a few years to when Fox News was just starting. Sure there would be those who through advertising or a deep devotion to Rupert Murdoch would have paid specifically for that channel. Perhaps over time Fox News would have grown to the stature it has today ... but it would have taken much longer.


You mean that it would have to start out on its own like any new brand or product on the market today? What a concept. 

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> If you wanted to start up a new channel you provide it for the first year "very" cheaply or even free.


And who is going to pay for that first year of loss? Does that mean that only companies with deep pockets would be able to afford to put forth a new channel? Forget real niche channels - the only new ones that would survive would be the ones financially backed by the Viacoms, ABCs and Time-Warners. No one else would be able to afford the loss.

Yep, a la carte sounds like a terrific way of breaking up media monopolies. :grin:


TNGTony said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> But roll back the clock a few years to when Fox News was just starting. Sure there would be those who through advertising or a deep devotion to Rupert Murdoch would have paid specifically for that channel. Perhaps over time Fox News would have grown to the stature it has today ... but it would have taken much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that it would have to start out on its own like any new brand or product on the market today? What a concept.
Click to expand...

Yep. New channels would be introduced just like shampoo at Wal*Mart. First the product provider would have to convince a Wal*Mart buyer that they will sell enough of their product to make it worth taking up space on their shelves and in their distribution system. Then the product provider will have to figure out a way of making people choose to pay for the product. After customers have bought the product Wal*Mart can look at sales to decide if the product is worth distributing and taking up shelf space. There is a very narrow window where a product has to succeed or it is gone forever (or until it becomes popular enough elsewhere for Wal*Mart to choose to take the risk again).

If you want less than popular niche channels to come and go (especially go) every few months then a la carte is a good answer. Channels gone before they can prove they are worth buying - either because they have lost too much money or because the satellite carrier doesn't want to continue to waste their "shelf space" on something that doesn't sell.

292 channels plus PPV, RSNs, superstations and porn. Locals in 174 markets. That is what tiered programming has brought to Dish Network. Enough profit so they can grow and improve without relying on a corporate sugar daddy to bail them out.


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> And who is going to pay for that first year of loss? Does that mean that only companies with deep pockets would be able to afford to put forth a new channel? Forget real niche channels - the only new ones that would survive would be the ones financially backed by the Viacoms, ABCs and Time-Warners. No one else would be able to afford the loss.


Who can afford to put new products on the shelf today?

What "little guy" companies are putting forth all these new channels today?

Start up costs are huge these days and the majority of these costs are advertising and free samples/low prices that are used to gain market share.

Why should Pay TV work differently than any other type of startup? If your product cannot stand on it's own it dies. Name ANY channels that has gone away EVER in the pay TV industry. Not talking about name changes.

The sad fact is that we have a "welfare" Pay TV industry and no matter what you show on your channel, no matter how few people watch your channel you are propped up by the system. More and more channels join each year and zero ever go away. Eventually something has to give!

-JB


----------



## James Long

CNN FN and CNN SI just to name two. Shame they didn't have major backing.


----------



## TNGTony

James Long said:


> If you want less than popular niche channels to come and go (especially go) every few months then a la carte is a good answer. Channels gone before they can prove they are worth buying - either because they have lost too much money or because the satellite carrier doesn't want to continue to waste their "shelf space" on something that doesn't sell.


If they are popular, they wouldn't go. As to the "shelf space" there is more of it out there than you give them credit for. Right now if a channel is not part of mega-conglomo-mart r us, they don't stand a chance because the big companies control all the "shelf space". With a la carte, they stand a better chance.

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long

Only if the government further interferes with the process and requires it to happen. Credits for small entries ... that sort of thing. When mega-programmer comes to E* with an a la carte program and says "we'll pay you $20,000 per month for the 'shelf space' " mega-programmer is going to get the shelf space.


----------



## BobaBird

HDMe said:


> It is also worth mentioning again... that the "I want a la carte and know it can work" camp doesn't just want a la carte. They want a la carte, free equipment, $2 per channel fees and no overhead, and a small DBS dish.


No overhead? Who in that camp is looking to put Dish out of business? There have been several proposals in these discussions, including this thread, for covering E's expenses. Those include the current $6 no package fee, a new a la carte $20 access fee, and minimum purchase requirements.


> What you would most likely see with a pure a la carte system is choice fading away. You think you don't have choice now... but you really wouldn't have choice as the channels go away. And what about new channels? Today a new channel could ask 50 cents and placement in AT60 from Dish and get more than 6 million dollars... but a la carte, that channel might have to start at $10 or higher and who is going to sign up for a brand new $10 channel that just started?


That's if we get pure a la carte and shows why you should be supporting the compromise proposal for theme tiers. In the current some/more/all tiers, you have to buy the "all" tier to get that new niche channel that wasn't strong or appealing enough to get into the lower tiers. How many entry level customers are going to jump 2 tiers to get that channel?

Now if we had theme packages (kids, news, music, movies, sports, documentaries, variety, etc), that new channel would be added to the appropriate genre pack where it would have a built-in audience of viewers who would need do nothing more difficult than finding the listing in the guide. Total potential eyeballs wouldn't be nearly as high as with AT60, but the channel would have instant access to all the viewers most likely to tune to it because they already buy similar channels. I would think such a "pre-qualified" subscriber count would be more valuable to advertisers. Plus the channel still gets the protection of being in a package.

Tiers will be priced independently. Prices will go up as channels are added, but will only affect the people getting that tier. As the provider, Dish can require customers to take a minimum of say 3 tiers and offer a bundle discount for adding additional tiers up to AEP.


----------



## minnow

I find the argument that we should not support al-a-carte because new upstart channels will not succeed rather shallow. What new mass appeal broadcasters have set up shop within the last two years ? Sure we've got new foreign language niche offerings whose appeal is limited to say the least. Do we need any more generic offerings ? May I suggest a 24 hour feed of "Kings of Queens or "Friends." We've got more than enough broadcasters right now that are sharing 80% of their broadcasting hours with the same redundant programming one can find on other channels. 
Why do some advocate a welfare system for broadcasters ? Why are the majority of business enterprises in this country expected to pull their pants on every day without help, but television broadcasters are somehow entitled to my money for a producing a product I don't ever care to see nor want in my home?


----------



## jonsnow

Ok, if la carte were to be implemented and packages were outright banned, something I highly doubt, I dare pro package people, I dare you to name the 50 basic cable channels that you would buy, watch and that you couldn't live without..


----------



## koralis

James Long said:


> If you can come up with a way of stopping the provider's costs from increasing (satellite and channel providers) then we can start talking about freezing the costs we pay for their services. EVERYTHING goes up.


But the providers try to dusguise it, and accellerate it, by adding additional packages to bump up the rates $3 instead of passing along the .50 actual increase.

As a result, the providers make more money. If they do it $3 per year, no one complains too loudly. Lets not be nieve.. every time the price increases charlie isn't just covering costs, he's actually netting more revenue.


----------



## James Long

koralis said:


> But the providers try to dusguise it, and accellerate it, by adding additional packages to bump up the rates $3 instead of passing along the .50 actual increase.


Glad to see that you know exactly how much the costs have risen for E*.  
Do you really believe that their costs have only risen 50¢?


koralis said:


> As a result, the providers make more money. If they do it $3 per year, no one complains too loudly. Lets not be nieve.. every time the price increases charlie isn't just covering costs, he's actually netting more revenue.


Not as much as you want to believe. Yes, E* consistently posts a profit. But they also consistently post expenses that grow faster than their subscriber base including the #1 expense (IMHO) ... customer acquisition.


----------



## Steve Mehs

jonsnow said:


> Ok, if la carte were to be implemented and packages were outright banned, something I highly doubt, I dare pro package people, I dare you to name the 50 basic cable channels that you would buy, watch and that you couldn't live without..


Okay, If you take away 60 obvious channels, premium movie (44) and HD channels (16). Here's my 50

Fox News - My #1 News Source, Hannity, The Factor
Fuse - Actually Plays Music Videos
HGTV - I like the home improvement shows 
Food Network - $40 A Day, Emeril Live, Unwrapped, Tasty Travels 
DIY - Tech This House
CSPAN, CSPAN 2, CSPAN 3 - Lectures on various bills, especially those that have to do with technology
ESPN 2 - Various sports 
ESPNEWS - To catch up on the latest sports news
MSG - Buffalo Sabres Coverage
SNY - NY Mets Coverage
Comedy Central - South Park, Various Stand Ups
The History Channel - UFO Specials, WWII Specials
Sleuth - Miami Vice reruns
G4 - The Man Show
Sci Fi - Paranormal shows, Twilight Zone marathons
Military Channel - Anything that has to do with WWII
Science Channel - Some of the tech programming
Cartoon Network - Family Guy
Boomerang - The Jetsons
VH1 - Mostly crap, but I do like I Love The 70s, 80s and 90s series and the part twos of each
FX - The Shield, King Of The Hill marathons 
Nicktoons Network - I like classic Rugrats and Hey Arnold
Nick GAS - Some classic Nick shows I grew up with
Versus - NHL Coverage
BBC America - Old School Who's Line Is It Anyway
ABC Family - Christmas Programming and Drew Carry's Who's Line Is It Anyway
Travel Channel - Hunted Hotels, Las Vegas shows
Bloomberg TV - I catch financial news on BTV
BET J - Some interesting documentaries now and then
GAC - Classic Country Music Videos, back when country music was country music

That's 32 for me.

Channels my mother watches that I generally don't. (18)
Lifetime, Lifetime Movie Network, Lifetime Real Women, Oxygen, Women's Entertainment, SoapNet, QVC, HSN, AS, Hallmark, E!, TBS, USA, CNBC (Deal or No Deal), CMT, Style, TV Land, Animal Planet

And if I had them, I'd watch, NFL Network, Military History Channel and WGN.


----------



## jonsnow

Steve Mehs said:


> Okay, If you take away 60 obvious channels, premium movie (44) and HD channels (16). Here's my 50
> 
> Fox News - My #1 News Source, Hannity, The Factor
> Fuse - Actually Plays Music Videos
> HGTV - I like the home improvement shows
> Food Network - $40 A Day, Emeril Live, Unwrapped, Tasty Travels
> DIY - Tech This House
> CSPAN, CSPAN 2, CSPAN 3 - Lectures on various bills, especially those that have to do with technology
> ESPN 2 - Various sports
> ESPNEWS - To catch up on the latest sports news
> MSG - Buffalo Sabres Coverage
> SNY - NY Mets Coverage
> Comedy Central - South Park, Various Stand Ups
> The History Channel - UFO Specials, WWII Specials
> Sleuth - Miami Vice reruns
> G4 - The Man Show
> Sci Fi - Paranormal shows, Twilight Zone marathons
> Military Channel - Anything that has to do with WWII
> Science Channel - Some of the tech programming
> Cartoon Network - Family Guy
> Boomerang - The Jetsons
> VH1 - Mostly crap, but I do like I Love The 70s, 80s and 90s series and the part twos of each
> FX - The Shield, King Of The Hill marathons
> Nicktoons Network - I like classic Rugrats and Hey Arnold
> Nick GAS - Some classic Nick shows I grew up with
> Versus - NHL Coverage
> BBC America - Old School Who's Line Is It Anyway
> ABC Family - Christmas Programming and Drew Carry's Who's Line Is It Anyway
> Travel Channel - Hunted Hotels, Las Vegas shows
> Bloomberg TV - I catch financial news on BTV
> BET J - Some interesting documentaries now and then
> GAC - Classic Country Music Videos, back when country music was country music
> 
> That's 32 for me.
> 
> Channels my mother watches that I generally don't. (18)
> Lifetime, Lifetime Movie Network, Lifetime Real Women, Oxygen, Women's Entertainment, SoapNet, QVC, HSN, AS, Hallmark, E!, TBS, USA, CNBC (Deal or No Deal), CMT, Style, TV Land, Animal Planet
> 
> And if I had them, I'd watch, NFL Network, Military History Channel and WGN.


An AT25 package would make sense if you average those two numbers and the price would be around 19 dollars a month. Why the family package which censors content and freeviews even to those in lower tiers was offered and not a low price AT package is beyond me unless it was to look good to politicians. I generally would only watch about 5 or so channels(sci-fi,hist,foxnews,tcm,ifc),some of which are available in the AT120 package only(tcm,ifc), and my locals, which is 90 percent of what I was watching anyway before I droped the at120 package because of one too many price increases. La carte for me plus locals would not be asking for much, but I guess if you watch tv 24 hours a day and have 60 bucks a month to spare, packages are the way to go.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jonsnow said:


> An AT25 package would make sense if you average those two numbers and the price would be around 19 dollars a month. Why the family package which censors content and freeviews even to those in lower tiers was offered and not a low price AT package is beyond me unless it was to look good to politicians. I generally would only watch about 5 or so channels,some of which are available in the AT120 package, and my locals, which is 90 percent of what I was watching anyway before I droped the at120 package because of one two many price increases. La carte for me plus locals would not be asking for much, but I guess if you watch tv 24 hours a day and have 60 bucks a month to spare, packages are the way to go.


So why haven't you cancelled yet? I mean, since you think everything is overpriced and all... and you only want to watch 5 channels anyway... Seriously, if I were you I would cancel satellite altogether and just buy DVDs (or rent them) for the shows I wanted to watch when they are released.

But since you're still a subscriber, I'll assume that you feel you are getting your money's worth


----------



## Ray_Clum

jonsnow said:


> Ok, if la carte were to be implemented and packages were outright banned, something I highly doubt, I dare pro package people, I dare you to name the 50 basic cable channels that you would buy, watch and that you couldn't live without..


For Me:

1. ESPN
2. ESPN2
3. ESPNU
4. Fox Sports Net Midwest
5. Fox Sports Net Cincy
6. Fox News
7. History
8. Discovery
9. Local NBC
10. Local ABC
11. Local CBS
12. Local FOX
13. Local CW (Channel 4 in Indy carries IU and Purdue games)
14. Scifi
15. USA

For Wife:
16. Food Network
17. Discovery Health
18. DIY
19. The Weather Channel

For Son:
20. Disney East
21. Disney West
22. Toon Disney
23. Cartoon Network
24. Nickelodeon East
25. Nickelodeon West
26. Nicktoons
27. Discovery Kids

You're right. I couldn't pick 50, but I picked probably the most expensive programming out there. Simply put, bundled packages saves me money...


----------



## minnow

Ray_Clum said:


> For Me:
> 
> 1. ESPN
> 2. ESPN2
> 3. ESPNU
> 4. Fox Sports Net Midwest
> 5. Fox Sports Net Cincy
> 6. Fox News
> 7. History
> 8. Discovery
> 9. Local NBC
> 10. Local ABC
> 11. Local CBS
> 12. Local FOX
> 13. Local CW (Channel 4 in Indy carries IU and Purdue games)
> 14. Scifi
> 15. USA
> 
> For Wife:
> 16. Food Network
> 17. Discovery Health
> 18. DIY
> 19. The Weather Channel
> 
> For Son:
> 20. Disney East
> 21. Disney West
> 22. Toon Disney
> 23. Cartoon Network
> 24. Nickelodeon East
> 25. Nickelodeon West
> 26. Nicktoons
> 27. Discovery Kids
> 
> You're right. I couldn't pick 50, but I picked probably the most expensive programming out there. Simply put, bundled packages saves me money...


And Your Welcome since a protion of my monthly subscription payment goes towards subidization of the ESPN's, channels that I never watch and don't want but have no choice.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

minnow said:


> And Your Welcome since a protion of my monthly subscription payment goes towards subidization of the ESPN's, channels that I never watch and don't want but have no choice.


So how is it that you don't realize all of us are paying for channels that we don't watch just so you can have them?

How about all the a la carte folks posting lists of the channels they want to watch. I would be interested to see just what I'm paying for you to watch that I don't watch


----------



## Freckles

It is always hard for me to compare prices with others because so many plans are similar but have little perks that you can't take into account unless you know what the plan was when they signed up. whew, did that make sense??

I signed up for AEP w/locals $86.99 under 2 year contract, leased 942, 811, and 510. Paid $250 lease upgrade for the 942. $10 month extra receiver fee ($5 ea), DHPP waived for duration of 24 month contract, DVR fees waived as long as 942 is connected to phone line, Voom "special price" $5 month with HD pack $9.99, HD pack free for 6 mos, Club Dish to waive the Activation Fee.

*My question*: Is there really any reason to upgrade receivers other than Dish will eventually make me? I don't see much new HD content that I'm missing and I don't want to give up my waived DHPP fees. Not only are our locals not in HD, they're not even "our" locals, lol.

We are considering lower tier programming and Netflix or Blockbuster. But that would add about $20/month and an additional $10/month in DVR fees. So $30 on top of the cost of the lower tier programming and, eventually, the $5.99 DHPP or whatever plan is available to pay for insurance for Dish's equipment. (Now *that* has never seemed right to me--that I have to pay to insure leased equipment, but I guess they also do it with cars so everyone jumped on it.) I also need to drop the locals, if that is still an option.

According to the breakdowns of the price increase for AEP, it is a $3 increase like last year plus the additional $2 charge for the movie channels. Anyone who subscribes to the movie channels will also receive the $2 charge, not just AEP, is that right? Also, the HD pack will go up from $15 total for the old Voom and HD pack to a single $20 pack, which is the same for anyone who subscribes to the HD pack, right? So, as much as I hate the price increase and am also considering options, it looks pretty much the same for everyone. Those who want more will still pay more. Even if you have one of the lower tier packs with the $3 increase, if you have HD pack and Movie Channels, you will also get the other $7 increase. Unless I am wrong about the way the charges are calculated... Of course, it may be financially unlikely that anyone would tack HD and the premium movie package onto a lower tier package since it is probably cheaper to just go with AEP.

So was the HD Platinum really cheaper than AEP with HD pack & Voom?

Here are copies of my bills (if anyone is interested):

*2006 BILL*

New Monthly Charge(s) 01/17 to 02/16 [2006]
ADDITIONAL RECEIVER 5.0 
DIGITAL HOME ADVANTAGE -AMERICA'S EVERYTHING PAK/LOCAL 86.99 
ADDITIONAL RECEIVER 5.0 
DISH NETWORK DVR SERVICEFEE 0.0 
DISH NETWORK DVR SERVICEFEE 0.0 
DISH HOME PROTECTION 5.99 
DISH NETWORK HD PACKAGE 9.99 
VOOM ORIGINAL 5.0 
DHPP CREDIT 8TH MONTH - ADJUSTMENT -5.99

Account Charges $ 111.98 
Total $ 111.98

Taxes 
STATE/LOCAL TAX (SALES/GROSS RECEIPTS) 13.8

New Monthly Charge(s) 02/17 to 03/16 [2006]
ADDITIONAL RECEIVER 5.0 
DIGITAL HOME ADVANTAGE -AMERICA'S EVERYTHING PAK/LOCAL 89.99 
ADDITIONAL RECEIVER 5.0 
DISH NETWORK DVR SERVICEFEE 0.0 
DISH NETWORK DVR SERVICEFEE 0.0 
DISH HOME PROTECTION 5.99 
DISH NETWORK HD PACKAGE 9.99 
VOOM ORIGINAL 5.0 
DHPP CREDIT 9TH MONTH - ADJUSTMENT -5.99

Account Charges $ 114.98 
Total $ 114.98

*2006-2007 CURRENT BILL*
New Monthly Charge(s) 12/17 to 01/16 [2006-2007]

ADDITIONAL RECEIVER 5.00 
ADDITIONAL RECEIVER 5.00 
DHPP CREDIT 19TH MONTH - ADJUSTMENT -5.99 
DIGITAL HOME ADVANTAGE -AMERICA'S EVERYTHING PAK/LOCAL 89.99 
DISH HOME PROTECTION 5.99 
DISH NETWORK DVR SERVICEFEE 0.00 
DISH NETWORK DVR SERVICEFEE 0.00 
DISH NETWORK HD PACKAGE 9.99 
VOOM ORIGINAL 5.00

Taxes 
STATE/LOCAL TAX (SALES/GROSS RECEIPTS) 14.22

Total Taxes $ 14.22


----------



## jonsnow

HDMe said:


> So why haven't you cancelled yet? I mean, since you think everything is overpriced and all... and you only want to watch 5 channels anyway... Seriously, if I were you I would cancel satellite altogether and just buy DVDs (or rent them) for the shows I wanted to watch when they are released.
> 
> But since you're still a subscriber, I'll assume that you feel you are getting your money's worth


I only subscribe because otherwise I could only get CBS and about 2 local Latino channels. I live in the Sierra Nevada foothills, which block 90 percent of ota reception from Fresno and I do not want to live in that hell hole of smog, overcrowding and dirty water.


----------



## Paul Secic

jrb531 said:


> Once upon a time (you all know this LOL) technology was such that they only had a very limited number of ways to scramble the signal. This "forced" groups of channels into packages because old 70's tech did not allow you to turn on and off individual channels. They could turn on and off different scrambling methods but only had a few thus they had the basic channels that everyone had unscrambled and the next two packages each were scrambled a different way so they could turn on and off the next two packages.
> 
> Thus the three package system was born. 30 years later we are still in this system for no other reason than it makes them more $$$ because as they add more channels they raise the price and thus force us into paying for more than many of us would like.
> 
> We "take it" because of the old "it's always been this way" ideology.
> 
> Add a few packages and make them themed and I would be happy. Allow us to add a single channel from another package would also work. The fact that they refuse any form of compromise says alot.
> 
> That family package, no matter how you spin it, is nothing more than Dish and the programmers coming up with a way to head off ala-cart or "any" change to the system.
> 
> -JB


The NAB would have a tissy fit if ala cart got in. Buy a digital atenna, because it ain't happining! Whine all you want.....


----------



## Steve Mehs

jonsnow said:


> An AT25 package would make sense if you average those two numbers and the price would be around 19 dollars a month.


No thanks, I'll take my bundeled package with every channel and $157 cable bill, that will be $230 after my promo is up. I feel I am getting a great value, and it's worth it to me.


----------



## eatonjb

ok.. so if ESPN is such a money hog, then make all packages without it, and then make ya pay for it if you really want it., I agree. Sports is really one sided, you either want it, or just wait for your locals to have the game your intrested into.

or give ESPN for free (or in the package) and if you choose that you dont want it. give us options (a small alcart option of just a few options)

e..b


----------



## audiomaster

I favor pure ala-carte. You turn on your receiver and you start to pay. You have access to All channels on the Sats including PPV HBO, Showtime etc. You want to watch the evening news, maybe it's $0.05. You want to watch a live title fight or race, maybe it's $50.00. Most things are somewhere in between. When you bring up a program in the guide, it says down in the corner how much it will be. It also says how much you have spent this month so you can monitor costs. You enter a password when you turn on the receiver so you have control of what goes on. 

When I fire up my home theater, I am paying for electricity, cooling, projector lamp usage (replacement cost $400.00) depreciation on a $10,000 projector and the rest of the gear in the rack etc. It's all part of the cost of being entertained/informed. So I am really paying per hour anyway!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

eatonjb said:


> ok.. so if ESPN is such a money hog, then make all packages without it, and then make ya pay for it if you really want it., I agree. Sports is really one sided, you either want it, or just wait for your locals to have the game your intrested into.
> 
> or give ESPN for free (or in the package) and if you choose that you dont want it. give us options (a small alcart option of just a few options)


On what are you basing ESPN being a money hog? Is it just because you've seen a few people post and blame ESPN for the money?

Consider that ESPN may cost around $3.50 per subscriber... and the bills in Feb are going up by $3 but ESPN has not negotiated a new price as far as I know... so how can you possibly blame ESPN for the next rate increase?

If every single channel just wanted a few pennies, that would make $3 very quickly... and without the package each channel might be asking for $0.25 or $0.50 or even $1.00 per channel each year because they would need more... so all this "I would save money a la carte" fantasy could only work if all you wanted to pay for was 1-2 channels most likely.

I'm kind of bored with all the rhetoric though so I am making the New Year's resolution not to have the deja vu conversations about why a la carte doesn't magickally make things better... and am promising myself this will be my last post on the subject unless and until a la carte becomes something of a reality (which I hope never is the case).


----------



## Steve Mehs

> On what are you basing ESPN being a money hog?


It's simple, people need a scapegoat, they need to blame someone, so they blame the worldwide leader in sports.


----------



## minnow

Steve Mehs said:


> It's simple, people need a scapegoat, they need to blame someone, so they blame the worldwide leader in sports.


Not to mention that both Charlie and our TWC franchise have both blamed ESPN in the past for forcing large increases onto them as compared to other program providers. And HDMe, why are you so nasty ?


----------



## Jim5506

Let's take a look at how a-la-carte would really work.

ESPN, for example would not cost $3.50 a-la-carte, because they know they would lose revenue, they would probably ask $20/mo for ESPN-a-la-carte, and $3.50 for ESPN in a package. So, those who espouse a-la-carte would really end up paying more for less.

Pick 10 channels you want and I'll bet your a-la-carte bill would be over $100 because the providers will pump up the price to make up for loss of subscribers.

These figures are only estimates, actual mileage will vary.


----------



## jonsnow

Jim5506 said:


> Let's take a look at how a-la-carte would really work.
> 
> ESPN, for example would not cost $3.50 a-la-carte, because they know they would lose revenue, they would probably ask $20/mo for ESPN-a-la-carte, and $3.50 for ESPN in a package. So, those who espouse a-la-carte would really end up paying more for less.
> 
> Pick 10 channels you want and I'll bet your a-la-carte bill would be over $100 because the providers will pump up the price to make up for loss of subscribers.
> 
> These figures are only estimates, actual mileage will vary.


I can't imagine paying 20 dollars a month for one channel, if we live in a democratic republic with free markets. I as a consumer would cancel dish altogether if one la cart channel I wanted cost 20 dollars. I really don't care if dish has to take a loss to lower prices and making la carte channels loss leaders to boost subscription rates or heaven help us, actually firing half their workers to lower costs. I don't see why anybody would pay 20 dollars a month for monday night football when it's not as good quality as football in the late 70's, and that was free. At least in la carte, I would not be forced to pay 42 dollars a year for a product I had no interest in. Dish should at least give me a pay per episode/program option so in case of a nuclear war I could sub to one hour of Foxnews and not have to watch a vacuum cleaner infomercial on my local channels.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

minnow said:


> And HDMe, why are you so nasty ?


Who was being nasty? I re-read my post and didn't see it. Sorry if you interpreted it that way. It's just that this particular topic happens every year, and virtually the same conversation happens... to the point where instead of posting we could just all agree to read archived threads again semi-annually as nothing new has been added to the equation.

I promised myself that I would start next year different, and not participate in that particular conversation anymore. Just one hour to go!


----------



## cdoyle

OK, the more I think about this, the more I think I'm going to downgrade from the 180 pkg and just get the 60 (or whatever they will call it next)

Then subscribe to a netflix or blockbuster type program

With the 180 I only get the Movie Channel and Encore which I swear only play diehard movies 29 times a month. At least with netflix type thing, I get to choose the movies I want to watch.

It would come out to about the same as I'm paying now with the 180 plan.

The channels I like to watch the most are still in the 60 plan (sci-fi and toon network) 

Anyone have any cons about doing something like this?


----------



## Chris Freeland

HDMe said:


> Who was being nasty? I re-read my post and didn't see it. Sorry if you interpreted it that way. It's just that this particular topic happens every year, and virtually the same conversation happens... to the point where instead of posting we could just all agree to read archived threads again semi-annually as nothing new has been added to the equation.
> 
> I promised myself that I would start next year different, and not participate in that particular conversation anymore. Just one hour to go!


I agree 100%, I am also tired of these same old "a la carte" discussions of something that is not likely to happen in are lifetime. This is why I have refused to join in at this point. Yearly price increases are a yearly occurrence for not just cable and satellite TV, but other services as well, like gas for the car, electricity for the home, telephone etc., and weather we have "a la carte" TV service or not will not change this. Plus no one here really knows for sure weather having "a la carte" as an option would cost us the average consumer more or less for are TV service, just for the record, I suspect "a la carte" would cost us more for less channels, however that is just my opinion and none of us really know for sure, so what's the point of even discussing it?


----------



## JimFunk

No more A la carte discussions. It is pointless, it will never happen on Dish, and you are all just wasting your time playing into your own little fantasies. If you don't like the bulk type subscriptions, then look elsewhere. Oh I forgot, there isn't any other alternatives. So suck it up or get some rabbit ears.


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> So how is it that you don't realize all of us are paying for channels that we don't watch just so you can have them?
> 
> How about all the a la carte folks posting lists of the channels they want to watch. I would be interested to see just what I'm paying for you to watch that I don't watch


Instead of saying over and over about why "true" ala-cart is pure evil will you comment about the compromise in which packages are played in themes and you can pick any or all packages without having to build up.... IE Subscribe to A and B in order to get C?

Why is compromise so difficult?

Are you also against theme packages?

-JB


----------



## jrb531

Steve Mehs said:


> It's simple, people need a scapegoat, they need to blame someone, so they blame the worldwide leader in sports.


ESPN is an example of a "type" of programming that is very costly per channel and a "huge" number of people are forced to pay for it even if they never watch it.

This is why themed packages make sense.

Those who hate sports don't pay for ESPN, those who love sports don't have to pay for kiddie shows.

Want to bet "which" type of programming costs more... Sports or Kiddie shows? *smiles*

Once you do that... let EPSN double their rates every year for all I care as I will just cancel their ass.

They know this which is why they fear theme or ala cart. They know that once people are not longer "forced" to pay for their channels they will have to actually act like any other business or they may lose your $$$'s.

Why is this always so one-way. If you are happy paying $100 or $200 a month for Pay TV... well they is your perogative but don't ask me to help subsidise your TV viewing.

Compare price per hour viewed.... not price per channel!

-JB


----------



## jrb531

Jim5506 said:


> Let's take a look at how a-la-carte would really work.
> 
> ESPN, for example would not cost $3.50 a-la-carte, because they know they would lose revenue, they would probably ask $20/mo for ESPN-a-la-carte, and $3.50 for ESPN in a package. So, those who espouse a-la-carte would really end up paying more for less.
> 
> Pick 10 channels you want and I'll bet your a-la-carte bill would be over $100 because the providers will pump up the price to make up for loss of subscribers.
> 
> These figures are only estimates, actual mileage will vary.


What do you base this on?

I say ala-cart will cost 1 penny per month for 100 channels!

What do I base this on? Well the same thing you are... nothing 

Ala-cart will raise the cost per channel but will lower the cost per hour viewed for most people. Do I know this for sure? Or course not which is why I prefer the compromise of theme packages that keep the current system in place but allow a limited form of choice.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> Who was being nasty? I re-read my post and didn't see it. Sorry if you interpreted it that way. It's just that this particular topic happens every year, and virtually the same conversation happens... to the point where instead of posting we could just all agree to read archived threads again semi-annually as nothing new has been added to the equation.
> 
> I promised myself that I would start next year different, and not participate in that particular conversation anymore. Just one hour to go!


It comes up every year because there is a problem. It only stopped last year when Dish suddenly was free from contract constraints (funny how that happened all of a sudden LOL) and was able to pull the rug out of ala-cart in congress by offering family programming without adult content thus removing "one" of the reasons ala-cart was being put forth.

Theme packages would fix the problem once and for all.

1. Packages would remain to help keep costs low
2. People could subscribe to any number of packages based on "their" viewing habits
3. Discounts could be offered to those taking more packages
4. Each package's price could rise or fall depending on the cost of that type of programming.

This seems to be a win-win situation. The best of both worlds so why not do it this way?

I don't think the distributors care (Dish, DTV, Cable) as they would get the same revenue... you know who is against it? The programmers are afraid that this type of change would tie their hands. Any price increases would be harder to hide.

Example:

It is no secret that ESPN has been using it's deep pockets to outbid free TV for sports. How can free TV compete when they have only ad revenue while you pay for ESPN and still have to watch ads? EPSN outbids Pay TV, sports uses the money to make the rich richer (Million dollar salleries are now multi-million) and we still pay.

Now if ESPN raise their costs the sports package goes up in price much faster than the other types of programming. Eventually people will start to cancel. Is the current system of "forced sports" not better for them?

What about kids shows? They know that anyone without a kid will cancel a kids package so why rock the boat?

IMHO it's fear of the unknown that keeps the staus quo. I'm sure big business has done lots of studies, surveys and whatnot to see what makes them more $$$ and this is the current system because choice means competition and competition is bad for them.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

JimFunk said:


> No more A la carte discussions. It is pointless, it will never happen on Dish, and you are all just wasting your time playing into your own little fantasies. If you don't like the bulk type subscriptions, then look elsewhere. Oh I forgot, there isn't any other alternatives. So suck it up or get some rabbit ears.


That's how we effect change in this country!

Throw up your hands and give up.

Not me. If you do not care to participate then don't but I'll not stop until some form of compromise is put forth.

IMHO the only reason this mixed up unfair system is still in place is the huge number of $$$'s being tossed toward congress from the programmers.

If this was not a sure fire reason to fight I do not know what is. If the present system made sense why spend all that money bribing.... er lobbying congress to leave things along?

-JB


----------



## jrb531

http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=395



> A Center for Public Integrity investigation of hundreds of filings with the Federal Communications Commission, lobbying reports and other documents reveals that the "grass roots" opposition to a la carte is actually a highly sophisticated lobbying campaign where seemingly disinterested third parties-like nonprofits and legislators-are spreading the anti-a la carte message using minority programming as the key issue.
> 
> In fact, rather than being disinterested, these third parties have much to gain. The Center has identified hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations and other benefits showered by cable companies on some of these nonprofits. The Center also found one instance in which free airtime was made available to a mayors group and identified nearly $60,000 in contributions to one key pro-cable congressman.


----------



## jonsnow

This truely is the gem of the article: 

"On July 15, the NCTA released a study funded by the association that said a la carte would hike rates. The study, conducted by Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., determined that if cable operators had to offer all channels a la carte while still offering tiered programming, costs would rise between 7 percent and 15 percent just to outfit cable systems with the a la carte technology. Booz Allen argued that consumers would end up paying more for fewer channels, and an a la carte system would make it difficult for new networks (like minority themed channels) to get into the business." 

My question is, what's 7 percent when we've just had a 10 percent price increase from dish network and can expect one every other year without fail.


----------



## jrb531

jonsnow said:


> This truely is the gem of the article:
> 
> "On July 15, the NCTA released a study funded by the association that said a la carte would hike rates. The study, conducted by Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., determined that if cable operators had to offer all channels a la carte while still offering tiered programming, costs would rise between 7 percent and 15 percent just to outfit cable systems with the a la carte technology. Booz Allen argued that consumers would end up paying more for fewer channels, and an a la carte system would make it difficult for new networks (like minority themed channels) to get into the business."
> 
> My question is, what's 7 percent when we've just had a 10 percent price increase from dish network and can expect one every other year without fail.


And systems that are already digital (Digital Cable, Dish, DTV) who do not need this the cost goes up zero. Even if they did the cost would be a one-time thing. Once the new equipment was bought or the system was upgraded (something they already have to do - only really old cable systems are still analog only) the cost would go away.

I posted the link and report because it is a clear indicator that the programmers are fighting tooth and nail for a non-ala cart system and will not even offer us a bone which is theme packages.

Why?

What are they so afraid of?

Ask yourself this one... if they are willing to bribe, err contribute to politicians, special interests and anyone else who they feel will help keep the evil words "choice" and competition away from us... how far will they go to plant people in this forum?

If you were them would you not have a few log-in names on one of the most public and vocal Pay TV forums to put forth your "official" agenda in a non-official way?

I say this not to accuse anyone with different opinions but it is very suspicious that a few people will not even comment or provide "any" reason why a compromise such as theme packages is also a bad thing.

It's just...

ala-cart is bad
ala-cart will raise prices
ala-cart means less channels
ala-cart mean less choice
ala-cart mean the end of life as we know it

When people come back with a compromise of theme packages without pre-package requirements (You do not need to subscribe to package A and B to get C) the response is...

ala-cart is bad
ala-cart will raise prices
ala-cart means less channels
ala-cart mean less choice
ala-cart mean the end of life as we know it

But what about the question of theme packages?

ala-cart is bad
ala-cart will raise prices
ala-cart means less channels
ala-cart mean less choice
ala-cart mean the end of life as we know it

Next response: I'm sick of talking about ala-cart... this comes up every year and we'll never have ala-cart!

But what about the question of theme packages?

Can anyone tell me what the objection to Theme Packages are?

Let's drop ala-cart.... what about logical "Theme Packs"

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson

jrb531 said:


> Can anyone tell me what the objection to Theme Packages are?


Sure. Where do you put TBS? They carry football, so does this channel get placed into a "sports" package or a "rerun" package, or even a "movie" package?

And every channel provider will ask the same question about their channels.

And ESPN will demand they stay in the basic package, as they have the highest ratings of all this year thanks to Monday Night Football.

Asking for "theme" packs is the same as asking for a la carte. It is simply asking to change the status quo, and neither the channel providers nor the multichannel distributors care to kill the golden goose.


----------



## jrb531

Greg Bimson said:


> Sure. Where do you put TBS? They carry football, so does this channel get placed into a "sports" package or a "rerun" package, or even a "movie" package?
> 
> And every channel provider will ask the same question about their channels.
> 
> And ESPN will demand they stay in the basic package, as they have the highest ratings of all this year thanks to Monday Night Football.
> 
> Asking for "theme" packs is the same as asking for a la carte. It is simply asking to change the status quo, and neither the channel providers nor the multichannel distributors care to kill the golden goose.


Demands aside... this is why congress has to get involved. To stop the programmers from telling the distributors how they can re-sell the product!

Now assuming Dish could get a price without "must carry" crap you would place any channels that crosses multiple themes in a "variety pack"

The nice thing about Dish being able to offer multiple packages is that they could have the same channels in multiple packages.

Nothing would stop them from offering variety packs that contain ESPN, Kids shows and whatnot... kind of like now but with one serious change... you would not have to subscribe to package A and B to get C.

Channels that defy easy description could either be placed in multiple packs or placed in an "other" catagory.

Example:

If TBS offers movies and sports why not include TBS in both the sports and movies package.

Channels that are mostly a cetain type like cartoon network or ESPN are no-brainers.

I bet if you sat down you could figure out 100 different ways to package channels that make more sence than they do now.

Easy catagories include:

Kids - Catoon Network, Disney etc...
Education - History Channel, National Geographic, The Learning Channel, Food Network
Sports - EPSN, NFL Network etc...
Movies - TCM, AMC etc...

Now the specialty packs would not have 25 channels each.

For the "crossover" packages you would have a few variety packs that might cost a bit more but have more channels that cover multiple types of programming.

Right now the three packs we got were set up screw us.

ESPN has no business being in the basic package. It is there because ESPN would not sell their programming to Dish unless Dish caved in and made everyone pay for it. The system is messed up and we can argue about what should be placed where but I'll tell you this....

I could pick the packages with a dart board and come up with a better system... providing one stipulation... all packages would be independant. I could subscribe to any or all in any order without having to take A and B to get C.

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson

jrb531 said:


> Demands aside... this is why congress has to get involved. To stop the programmers from telling the distributors how they can re-sell the product!


This happens in many other industries, not just pay-television. Wonder why the spice racks at grocery stores are not grouped by spice variety, but by manufacturer? Wonder why Sam's Club doesn't offer Coca-Cola? The manufacturer has terms that must be followed by the distributor in order to sell the manufacturer's product to the general public.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but why should the consumer get to decide how a channel is packaged? This practice has evolved over the past 20 years, so we are now supposed to involve the government in order to rectify the injustice of laissez-faire economics?

Let's simply take a look at ESPNU. On Dish Network it is in AT180; on DirecTV it is in Sports Pack. At Dish Network, you must add an additional $10 a month if you want this one channel. Both Dish Network and ESPN agree that AT180 is where this station belongs, and subscribers should pay extra money if they want the channel. At DirecTV, you must add a "premium" package of Sports Pack channels, which is at most $13 a month on top of the base package. Again, this is another case where DirecTV and ESPN have agreed that this channel should be in a package that is not a base package, but considered an add-on.

It is this give-and-get negotiation that enables a company like Dish Network or DirecTV to gain more money for lesser channels.

Instead, all a theme-pack situation does is remove a "basic" channel lineup. One for which both DirecTV and Dish Network and every other multichannel carrier make the bulk of their revenues.

Which is why a "basic" package is one hundred percent important to all involved.


----------



## nataraj

James Long said:


> But roll back the clock a few years to when Fox News was just starting. Sure there would be those who through advertising or a deep devotion to Rupert Murdoch would have paid specifically for that channel. Perhaps over time Fox News would have grown to the stature it has today ... but it would have taken much longer.


Big Deal. Remember - free markets ? Thats how it is supposed to operate.

As soon as you agree to pay a few dollars more so that I can watch my international channels for a reasonable price (instead of paying $15 per channel), I'll agree you have a point.

Until then, I'll have to say, people who oppose a la carte just want everyone else to pay for their entertainment.


----------



## Greg Bimson

nataraj said:


> Until then, I'll have to say, people who oppose a la carte just want everyone else to pay for their entertainment.


Actually, the people that want a la carte simply want a cheaper bill, but don't realize their entertainment is also being subsidized and will cost much more if it a la carte is _mandated_.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> But roll back the clock a few years to when Fox News was just starting. Sure there would be those who through advertising or a deep devotion to Rupert Murdoch would have paid specifically for that channel. Perhaps over time Fox News would have grown to the stature it has today ... but it would have taken much longer.





nataraj said:


> Big Deal. Remember - free markets ? Thats how it is supposed to operate.


People have a misconception what a _free market_ is:

The ability for two parties to make a business arrangement without government intervention.

Any other definition is fool-hardy.


----------



## James Long

nataraj said:


> Big Deal. Remember - free markets ? Thats how it is supposed to operate.


Free markets decided to sell channels in tiers. So, are you for free markets or not?


----------



## cdoyle

I just downgraded my AT180 to the AT60.
I just can't see paying close to $60 a month for what that package offered. 

Going to sign up with Netflix I think tonight.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> I can't imagine paying 20 dollars a month for one channel, if we live in a democratic republic with free markets.


How about $25. Dish Network charges $25 for TV Japan.


----------



## jrb531

Greg Bimson said:


> People have a misconception what a _free market_ is:
> 
> The ability for two parties to make a business arrangement without government intervention.
> 
> Any other definition is fool-hardy.


Why did the government step in and prevent the Dish-DTV merger? Surely this would have lowered costs to provide service dramatically.

Government steps in when forces remove competition. In this case the Pay TV industry does not have any competition... at least the programmers who are 90% of the problem. In this case no one wants the government to step in and take control... just remove forces that are keeping competition out of the Pay TV industry.

If they stepped in to ensure that the "distributors" remain competative when they blocked the Dish-DTV merger due to competition issues, they are years behind taking a look at the forced the programmers are using to prevent competition.

While their "type" of programming does vary some, they do not even have price to compete with. The study I linked shows how much they dread competition!

-JB


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> Free markets decided to sell channels in tiers. So, are you for free markets or not?


Did they now? Really? How did you come to this conclusion?

When I see ala-cart, theme packages or any other way the consumer can express free choice other than "yes" to pay tv or "no" to pay tv and people overwhelmingly pick the existing silly system then I will agree with you.

Saying 5-6 channels were once available 10+ years ago when most pay tv systems only had 20-30 channels and people picked the package... is this your basis why the free market has picked this messed up system?

-JB


----------



## jrb531

Steve Mehs said:


> How about $25. Dish Network charges $25 for TV Japan.


But if Dish "forced" everyone to take that channel in AT60 then it would be much cheaper for everyone... of course most people would not ever watch it but we don't care... we could add yet another channel to our count total and then proclaim how cheap each channel is overall.

This is the same "logic" for any "forced" channel.

-JB


----------



## vahighland

cdoyle said:


> I just downgraded my AT180 to the AT60.
> I just can't see paying close to $60 a month for what that package offered.
> 
> Going to sign up with Netflix I think tonight.


Let me know what you think about Netflix, I'm looking to do something similar. Last year I downgraded from AT180 to AT120 and never looked back, so I may drop to AT60 or even the family tier. When you do the math, it just makes sense.

I was hoping the industry would offer more options to consumers either in the form of a la carte or more granular packages. Tired of paying the ESPN tax. Congress is bought and paid for, so I doubt they'll do anything.


----------



## cdoyle

vahighland said:


> Let me know what you think about Netflix, I'm looking to do something similar. Last year I downgraded from AT180 to AT120 and never looked back, so I may drop to AT60 or even the family tier. When you do the math, it just makes sense.
> 
> I was hoping the industry would offer more options to consumers either in the form of a la carte or more granular packages. Tired of paying the ESPN tax. Congress is bought and paid for, so I doubt they'll do anything.
> rop to AT60 or whatever they plan to call it.


Ya I'll let ya know how netflix works out. I signed up last night, and added the movies to my list. Should have them by tomorrow.

From everyone I've talked to that uses Netflix, they really like it. So I'm hoping I have the same experience.


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> When I see ala-cart, theme packages or any other way the consumer can express free choice other than "yes" to pay tv or "no" to pay tv and people overwhelmingly pick the existing silly system then I will agree with you.
> 
> Saying 5-6 channels were once available 10+ years ago when most pay tv systems only had 20-30 channels and people picked the package... is this your basis why the free market has picked this messed up system?


My basis of calling it the 'free market' is that THEY choose how they were going to sell their product. No government saying "thou shalt tier" or "thou shalt not tier". No dictator writing rules from upon high. Tiers work in this industry.

It is obvious that you are not really for a 'free market' ... you are pushing for a 'jrb531 controlled market'. Sell things they way 'jrb531' tells you to sell them. Admit that and drop the lie that you want markets to be free. You want additional market controls.

The marketplace is more than the wishes of a few vocal opponents hurling stones at a decades old industry. If you don't like the way programming is sold start your own company ... and see how long you last when YOU are not following the tried and true ways of succeeding in the industry. Maybe you will succeed ... but it is a lot easier to throw stones at successful businesses that actually DO something that proves your method is better.


----------



## jrb531

Another interesting part of the article:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=395



> The cable a la carte issue actually dates back to the 1980s, when cable companies offered it as a pricing option. Though a la carte service never caught on, demand for the option resurfaces periodically depending on the level of public dissatisfaction with service and cost. By March 31, 1999, provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had phased out cable price regulation and prices began to spiral upward. But the a la carte issue got red hot exposure when conservative groups started pushing the issue.
> 
> The Janet Jackson Super Bowl stunt emboldened social conservatives like Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican from Georgia, to push for a la carte as a means to keep risqué programming out of households that don't want it. Joining the cable a la carte debate was Consumers Union and its senior director of policy Gene Kimmelman, albeit grudgingly.
> 
> "A la carte emerged in the consumer agenda only after efforts to prevent concentration of ownership and price gouging all failed," he said. "It was kind of a fall-back position. It was never viewed as the totally optimal approach."


If you read the article you will see that the Pay TV industry prodused a form letter that the bribed... err "enlightened" members of congress that got donations either directly from the Pay TV industry or by 3rd parties all released "opinions" that contained near identical verbage from the Pay TV form letter.

Interesting to say the least.

So how much $$$ are we talking about?



> Since 1998, the nation's cable television companies have spent $22.7 million in campaign contributions to national party organizations, members of Congress and presidential races. Leading the pack is Time Warner with $8.2 million. Second is Comcast at $3.2 million and third is the NCTA with $3.1 million.
> ...
> The industry's trade group, the NCTA, is among the most deep-pocketed and influential lobbying organizations in Washington. The association has sponsored 102 trips worth $198,727 since 2000, flying members of Congress and their staff to various events around the country.
> 
> The NCTA is also a major sponsor of travel for FCC commissioners and staff, having spent $192,609 flying over an eight-year period, according to a previous Center study.
> 
> In addition to its campaign contributions and its all-expenses-paid junkets, the trade group spent more than $32 million* on lobbying since 1998. The NCTA's top lobbyist, Daniel Brenner, was senior legal adviser to former FCC Chairman Mark Fowler in the 1980s.


Former members of the FCC often leave the FCC and work for Pay TV:



> The cable, broadcasting and telecommunications lobby in Washington is stacked with former FCC commissioners, bureau chiefs, top-level aides and former congressional staffers who have helped write communications laws.
> 
> For the cable industry alone, Center researchers were able to identify 17 former key government officials who now lobby Congress and the FCC. The "revolving door" situation at the FCC is so prevalent, it is at times difficult to keep straight whether someone is still in government or representing one communications firm or another.
> 
> Among former government officials who now work for the cable industry, the best known is Victoria Clarke, who had nothing to do with the FCC. Clark was the Pentagon spokeswoman during the Iraq war and is widely credited with creating the "embedding" system of attaching reporters to troops in the field. Clarke took a job with Comcast as senior adviser, communications and government affairs.
> 
> As to the a la carte issue specifically, the NCTA is using Brenner as well as Jill Luckett, vice president of program network policy, formerly a special adviser to former FCC Commissioner Rachelle Chong, and before that, legislative director for former Sen. Bob Packwood of Oregon.


And in closing:



> Kimmelman believes the lobbying campaign has more to do with the issue's potential than what it means right now. He believes that "there was a potential out-of-control grass-roots uprising against the way large cable and broadcast companies control programming and how it's distributed to the public," he said.
> 
> "I think they recognized this was so attractive to people from all political perspectives and so volatile in terms of spiraling cable rates and concerns about smarmy programming - they needed to deep six and absolutely wipe the debate off the ledgers before policy makers got into it."


-JB


----------



## James Long

> The Janet Jackson Super Bowl stunt emboldened social conservatives like Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican from Georgia, to push for a la carte as a means to keep risqué programming out of households that don't want it. Joining the cable a la carte debate was Consumers Union and its senior director of policy Gene Kimmelman, albeit grudgingly.


Yeah - social conservatives don't run form letter campaigns.  You complain about the tactics used by the Pay TV industry when those tactics simply mirror those of their opponents.


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> My basis of calling it the 'free market' is that THEY choose how they were going to sell their product. No government saying "thou shalt tier" or "thou shalt not tier". No dictator writing rules from upon high. Tiers work in this industry.
> 
> It is obvious that you are not really for a 'free market' ... you are pushing for a 'jrb531 controlled market'. Sell things they way 'jrb531' tells you to sell them. Admit that and drop the lie that you want markets to be free. You want additional market controls.
> 
> The marketplace is more than the wishes of a few vocal opponents hurling stones at a decades old industry. If you don't like the way programming is sold start your own company ... and see how long you last when YOU are not following the tried and true ways of succeeding in the industry. Maybe you will succeed ... but it is a lot easier to throw stones at successful businesses that actually DO something that proves your method is better.


No I am advocating that the Pay TV industry work like any other.

Offer discounts for packages = YES!

"Refuse" to offer a fair price for single channels = BAD!

Offer multiple packages that you can take in any order = YES!

Tell people they can only get C by paying for A and B first = BAD!

ESPN being "forced" on everyone = BAD!

"Any" type of specialty programming that costs more than xxx times the average cost of channels placed in their own package = YES!

Once again....

If I pay 100% for my install, 100% for my equipment, 100% the cost of maintaining my account and my "fair share" for maintaining the network....

Why can't I pay whatever it takes for any channel I want?

Now "you" may feel that the cost of that channel would be $2 or $20 and that it would not make sense to "you" to pay that ammount.... tell you what...

PLEASE let "me" decide what I feel is worth it. Just as some people pay $15 or $20 or even $25 for some special channel and you and I may think thats nuts.... well to others it makes sense.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> Yeah - social conservatives don't run form letter campaigns.  You complain about the tactics used by the Pay TV industry when those tactics simply mirror those of their opponents.


Why did they not offer the "Family Package" years ago?

It was not until the ala-cart steam roller was headed toward congress that "suddenly" all the "our hands are tied due to contract" seemed to disappear overnight and alas... we get a family pack!

Try and say that Dish was working on this for years and what a coincidence that the timeing is suspect...

I'll sell you some swampland in Florida 

-JB


----------



## James Long

DISH Family (and D* similar but higher priced offering) was a response to the CONTENT issue. People who didn't want to pay for Comedy Central, Spike or MTV without those networks falling under the same content rules as OTA. A la carte is a fallback position ... if "they" won't clean up cable then at least make it so we don't have to pay for the content we block. DISH Family cleaned up the service - answering the need expressed instead of going off the deep end.

You seem to know a lot about the contracts. Are you sure that it isn't just a case of buying in bulk? E* promises that 12 million subscribers will pay for a channel and the provider sets an appropriate price? The less subscribers E* can promise the more the provider wants per subscriber? DISH Family is a drop in the bucket as far as subscriber count goes. Offering that package does not limit E* from keeping their promise that 12 million will subscribe to a channel like Comedy Central. A la carte could break that promise ... no more guaranteed 12 million subscribers so no more 'bulk rate' from the providers.

In a perfect world money wouldn't be an issue. Producers would put out shows without regards to how much a programmer would pay for them ... programmers would produce channels without regards to how they woul pay their bills ... satellite/cable would put channels on their systems without regard to how they would pay their bills ... and the consumer - we'd get everything for free - or pay whatever the satellite/cable company wanted since money isn't an issue.

It is a food chain. You are at the bottom. So am I. Welcome (again) to your place in society.


----------



## jrb531

James.... do you have any comment on that article I linked? I do respect your opinion and each time I read that article it makes me sick. I know these things happen in the real world all the time in other industries but in this case it's clear that some pretty underhanded things continue to go on that hurts each and every one of us in some way.

-JB


----------



## jonsnow

The family package is dish network's peace offering to lobby groups who want packages as a civil right and has almost absolutely nothing to do with content since 90 percent of those channels are fta, are not worth 19 dollars and most people can use the remote to block offensive content already. I'm certain that la carte will never happen because the package people are now playing the race card. La carte is about not only content, but what most customers care about, lower prices and free will, also known in universal law as the pursuit of happiness. If dish offered more and varied choices of packages, in order to lower prices, there would be no demand for la carte. Content?, more like a last minute superbowl scapegoat. If anything the family package is big brother enforced censorship, which would not be bad except for the fact that it effects more than just the family pack subscribers(no free previews if your below at60,now at100).


----------



## jenniferny

Has anyone looked at the Consumer Price Index for 2006, it is saying that prices went up on average 3% for the year 2006, and Charlie wants three times that in a price increase on his most popular package. If that means that we will not see any price increases for the next three years then it will ALMOST even out, but we know that will NEVER HAPPEN. I have been a Dish customer since 1996 and his increases have almost always been reasonable, that is until now.
Definite Downgrade In My Future.The No Movie Channels And Blockbuster Looks Like The Way To Go For 2007. Whats did that old Starkist Tuna commercial say????? Oh Ya- *Sorry Charlie*
*DISHNETWORK- THE NEW CABLE PIG!*...


----------



## BobaBird

Greg Bimson said:


> Instead, all a theme-pack situation does is remove a "basic" channel lineup. One for which both DirecTV and Dish Network and every other multichannel carrier make the bulk of their revenues.
> 
> Which is why a "basic" package is one hundred percent important to all involved.


Instead of a "basic" package, you would have a minimum purchase requirement. That could be a set number of mini packs or a dollar amount. It could be a service fee that covers the provider's overhead with each pack being cheaper with those expenses being billed separately.

The carrier still makes money, and niche channels get more actual viewers by being bundled in a theme pack instead of an upper B or C tier. Why is this bad?


----------



## jrb531

One more:



> Cable television companies and broadcasters, as well as the largest local and long distance telephone companies, promised that federal government deregulation would result in competition across industry sectors. Backed by the intellectual firepower of some of the nation's most esteemed economists, communications executives approached policymakers at all levels of the government for decades armed with studies showing how economic efficiency would be increased if their industries were deregulated. The industry claimed that further oversight would be unnecessary because cable television companies would sell telephone service and compete against the local Bell monopolies, the Bell monopolies would soon sell video service, and new entrants would come on the scene to compete against everybody.
> 
> Unfortunately, after regulators gave up dozens of important consumer protections in return for these promises, competition never really emerged.
> 
> It has been seven years since Congress passed the Telecommunications Act, the law that called for deregulation of cable and telecom markets. Consumers were promised more competition and lower prices. Instead, cable rates have shot up 48 percent nationwide since 1996. Cable rates have increased nearly three times as fast as inflation. 95 percent of Americans homes still have only one choice for a cable company.


http://www.consumersunion.org/telecom/kimmel-303.htm


----------



## koralis

James Long said:


> You seem to know a lot about the contracts. Are you sure that it isn't just a case of buying in bulk? E* promises that 12 million subscribers will pay for a channel and the provider sets an appropriate price? The less subscribers E* can promise the more the provider wants per subscriber?


Well, there have been stories like this forever... providers insisting on carriage of lesser channels if Dish wants the popular ones. This serves as a tying arrangement, that frankly seems illegal but apparently isn't simply by virtue of no content provider being considered to have monopoly pricing power.

http://www.planetanalog.com/press_r...ssRelease.jhtml?HeadlineId=412834&CompanyId=2


> *Lifetime demanded an exorbitant price increase of 76 percent under the contract term. * If DISH Network capitulated to Lifetime's skyrocket pricing, unreasonable rate increases for DISH Network customers would result. *Lifetime is also insisting DISH Network force consumers to pay for a new channel* with similar content to a channel already available on DISH Network. In order to continue to bring customers the programming they want at a fair price every month, DISH Network must say NO to Lifetime's strong-arm tactics.


In this case, Charlie must not think that Lifetime is worth it so told them to take a hike. He would never do that with ESPN, and probably not Disney either and as a result we get more and more of those channels being added all the time as prices go higher and higher.


----------



## jrb531

koralis said:


> Well, there have been stories like this forever... providers insisting on carriage of lesser channels if Dish wants the popular ones. This serves as a tying arrangement, that frankly seems illegal but apparently isn't simply by virtue of no content provider being considered to have monopoly pricing power.
> 
> http://www.planetanalog.com/press_r...ssRelease.jhtml?HeadlineId=412834&CompanyId=2
> 
> In this case, Charlie must not think that Lifetime is worth it so told them to take a hike. He would never do that with ESPN, and probably not Disney either and as a result we get more and more of those channels being added all the time as prices go higher and higher.


So much for the current system helping the little guy as some claim 

The little guys get told to take a hike... those huge mega-pig companies with the "must-have" channels can do darn near anything they want ... and they do!

Congress was about to step in and the bribe $$$ started pouring in. This killed ala-cart or rule changes in committee thus the full congress did not even see this. They know that if this ever got out of committee that it would be hard to control and there are at least "some" public officials that still represent the people and not special interests.

-JB


----------



## hildred

yes who give the best deal dish network or sbc/at&t with dish also do sbc 622 to rent or 942


----------



## Greg Bimson

From the Consumer's Union ed-op posted by jrb531:


> When cable companies raise rates, they often blame the cost of programming, such as sports channels, and the expense of upgrading systems. But a new report by two of the nation's leading consumer groups says that these reasons do not stand up to scrutiny.


So, a rise in programming costs by the channel owners is not related to the rise in monthly bills by cable and DTH satellite companies.

The Consumer's Union just said in that last sentence that a la carte isn't the panacea that many believe.


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> James.... do you have any comment on that article I linked?


Other that to note that it is a copyrighted work that should NEVER have that much quoted on our forum? Perhaps when I get home tonight I'll spend an hour on it - but PLEASE ... respect the copyrights. A couple of paragraphs (not several, just two or three) and a link where people can go read the rest. DBSTalk does not have reprint rights.


Greg Bimson said:


> The Consumer's Union just said in that last sentence that a la carte isn't the panacea that many believe.


Shush ... you'll spoil the message if you post the truth.


----------



## jrb531

Greg Bimson said:


> From the Consumer's Union ed-op posted by jrb531:So, a rise in programming costs by the channel owners is not related to the rise in monthly bills by cable and DTH satellite companies.
> 
> The Consumer's Union just said in that last sentence that a la carte isn't the panacea that many believe.


How can you cherry pick part of the articles and leave out the others? The reason I posted what I did is that it includes points for and against what I have said.

What about the part that they are using bundling as a method to raise out bills?

I never said nor suggested that ESPN or sports are the only reason our bills are rising. I said, and maintain, that ESPN is a "prime" example of a "type" of specialty programming that has ZERO business being the the lower tier of programming.

Sports is no different that Childrens programming. Why should those without kids or with grown kids pay for that type of programming?

No matter how we each try and spin it... the FACT is that the current system is broken and while my suggestions for change or compromise may not be the best I have yet to see "any" movement from the programmers or distributors aside from the yearly Dish Fights with some of the less influential programmers about must-carry stuff.

The articles I posted make it very clear that the programmers are paying "huge" bucks in bribes, err donations, to select politicians and paying big bucks to ex-FTC employees to try and bunker down the current system.

WHY???????

To protect "their" asses at "our" expense. When will this end? Each year the channel count goes up and up and we pay more than the cost of inflation. When will the damn burst?

-JB


----------



## James Long

It sounds like you have an axe to grind that is bigger than a la carte and E*'s recent internal announcement.


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> Other that to note that it is a copyrighted work that should NEVER have that much quoted on our forum? Perhaps when I get home tonight I'll spend an hour on it - but PLEASE ... respect the copyrights. A couple of paragraphs (not several, just two or three) and a link where people can go read the rest. DBSTalk does not have reprint rights.Shush ... you'll spoil the message if you post the truth.


I had one post that had a few quotes and all of them had the direct links. Please feel free to edit the posts if they break rules. I did not want to post small snippets of what would support only my point.

I am trying to be fair here. The entire reason I was trying to push a compromise by suggesting theme packs was to not toss out the bath with the bathwater.

I fail to see "any" form of compromise on the other side of the issue here.

Is there room for compromise... assuming *smiles* as if anything we say really means anything aside from helping promote a free flow of information.

-JB


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> I fail to see "any" form of compromise on the other side of the issue here.
> 
> Is there room for compromise... assuming *smiles* as if anything we say really means anything aside from helping promote a free flow of information.


My compromise is _*allow*_ Pay TV providers to offer a la carte and not _*force*_ them to offer a la carte. Seems like we are already there.

Depending on whether you wnat to mandate a la carte programming or give tax credits to companies that offer their programming a la carte will show exactly where you fall in how you want to interfere in free markets.


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> It sounds like you have an axe to grind that is bigger than a la carte and E*'s recent internal announcement.


Assuming you are speaking to me... my axe is when there are two sides to a "discussion" and one side seems to be unmoving.

As you may be aware from posts from me the last time this came up I have backed off from my call for a full ala-cart. This compromise was gained from the excellent insight from yourself and other knowledgeable people who proclaim that there are some benefits to pacakging programming when we have this large number of channels.

But surely there is room for "some" change is there not? I read the same stone-wall from the same people claiming all is well when, in fact, there are huge issues if you are to read those reports.

It is appartent that there are huge conflists of interest going on right now and they are unwilling to at least shuffle the packs a bit to make sense.

I cannot help but feel they are ramming this down our throuts and telling us that they will do anything they want, charge anything they want and if we don't like it... well TOO DAMN BAD!

-JB


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> My compromise is _*allow*_ Pay TV providers to offer a la carte and not _*force*_ them to offer a la carte. Seems like we are already there.


So you are saying that Dish can offer "any" channel they so desire as ala-cart and we need to get on Dish's back as to why Dish, and not the programmers contracts they force on Dish, will not allow this?

-JB


----------



## James Long

E*'s contracts with their providers are confidential and I have not seen them. I assume the same statement stands for you. I suspect that their contracts are more of a promise to provide the channel to X number of viewers for a low low price of Y than "thou shalt not offer our channel a la carte". Although there have been previous press releases (during contract negotiations) that suggest that some channels ARE required to be sold in packages ... or at least some channels are forced to be on the system if the Pay TV provider wants access to certain more popular channels. There have also been reports of channels demanding a certain tier: read minimum number of subscribers.

Local TV stations have pulled this trick as well. There are several LP and less popular stations on E* that would not likely be there if it were not for E* wanting more popular channels owned by the same company in that or other markets. Search the forum for Weigel or Pappas.


----------



## Greg Bimson

jrb531 said:


> No matter how we each try and spin it... the FACT is that the current system is broken and while my suggestions for change or compromise may not be the best I have yet to see "any" movement from the programmers or distributors aside from the yearly Dish Fights with some of the less influential programmers about must-carry stuff.
> 
> [...]
> 
> To protect "their" asses at "our" expense. When will this end? Each year the channel count goes up and up and we pay more than the cost of inflation. When will the damn burst?


When people simply start dumping their multichannel provider. As it is 85 percent of the households in the US subscribe to a multichannel service. This number is not decreasing. So until people leave in droves, it appears that most people are happy to pay the increases when weighed against not having the programming.

All of this because a few people believe that removing programming that they don't watch will actually lower their bills. And almost every study says that a la carte will not generally reduce bills at all.

Trying to move to a "theme" based scheme is just as impossible, because it is likely that the channel providers do not wish to be lumped into a "non basic" package. There is absolutely no reason why a Lifetime, Nickelodeon, Discovery or ESPN, which are all in the basic package, would put themselves into a package with lesser distribution.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

If my pay check could keep up with the YEARLY PRICE INCREASES I wouldn't mind . I am sorry I think that a $10.00 increase is too much to ask for one year.

Today even the SkyReport.com website said as much. They said that Dish is making the price of Hd a flat $20.00 for anyone that subs to a basic pack and that they are pricing it to high -which will make it stand out in comparison to Directv and Cable where it is only $10.00 a month.

Add to that the high cost to upgrade to high def receivers, dishes etc , and satellite is at a disadvantage compared to cable. While charging more to recoup higher costs , it will also discourage customers from upgrading, potentialy driving them to cable competition.

www.skyreport.com


----------



## Greg Bimson

Ah, so to come back full circle...

Who is responsible for raising the rate on the HD pack to $20 a month?


----------



## James Long

Mike D-CO5 said:


> If my pay check could keep up with the YEARLY PRICE INCREASES I wouldn't mind . I am sorry I think that a $10.00 increase is too much to ask for one year.


I'd love a 10% wage increase myself ... This (for Platinum DishHD customers) is like being paid a bonus all of last year and then not getting a bonus the next year. E* can't give a way the store forever ... especially with D* already charging a higher price. When D* raises it's price E* will still be in the ballpark.

(Today: DishHD Platinum $104.99 w/locals, D* TCPremier + HD $109.98)


Mike D-CO5 said:


> They said that Dish is making the price of Hd a flat $20.00 for anyone that subs to a basic pack and that they are pricing it to high -which will make it stand out in comparison to Directv and Cable where it is only $10.00 a month.


Can't compare price without looking at the lineup. AT60 is a more affordable package than Platinum and D*'s TCPremier plus HD ... but the comparison falls short when you look at the channel count. D*'s addition of HD RSNs helps (content people want) but isn't the end of the story.

If D* adds Voom expect their rate to go up. Programming isn't free.


Greg Bimson said:


> Who is responsible for raising the rate on the HD pack to $20 a month?


No one. HD has been priced at $20 more than SD for the past year. Selected customers have been receiving a discount. The better question may be "who is responsible for ending the $5 discount for 'Platinum' subscribers."


----------



## jrb531

Greg Bimson said:


> When people simply start dumping their multichannel provider. As it is 85 percent of the households in the US subscribe to a multichannel service. This number is not decreasing. So until people leave in droves, it appears that most people are happy to pay the increases when weighed against not having the programming.
> 
> All of this because a few people believe that removing programming that they don't watch will actually lower their bills. And almost every study says that a la carte will not generally reduce bills at all.
> 
> Trying to move to a "theme" based scheme is just as impossible, because it is likely that the channel providers do not wish to be lumped into a "non basic" package. There is absolutely no reason why a Lifetime, Nickelodeon, Discovery or ESPN, which are all in the basic package, would put themselves into a package with lesser distribution.


Which is why they have to be forced to. Of course "everyone" wants to be in the "forced package" - you would be stupid not to. But if there is no "basic" package and every channel is in theme packs then the issue of being in certain packs is lessoned.

You still have not commented on the articles I linked. You keep saying over and over that ala-cart will not work, the people have spoken and already said they do not want ala-cart, themes or any other system and keep pointing out these studies.

Let me ask this... how can you study and compare two systems when one of the systems has NEVER been tested. Please do not say that 15 years ago Dish had a select handfull of ala-cart channels and people did not pick them.

How do we know they did not pick them? How do we know that they were not just phased out because they made more $$$ "not" offering them or that the programmers forced Dish to stop distributing them via contracts?

If people want to shoot down what I say then please use fact, links and other "factual" information. Yes we are all (myself included) prone to stretching things in the heat of a debate but I linked a few "very" on topic articles and studies that prove that the programmers are fighting "any" change tooth and nail and spending big $$$'s to do it.

Why?

I can't help wonder if "the people" love the current system then why are they spending so much money trying to keep the status quo?

Care to comment about the article that says that Cable Companies are using bundling to jack up prices?

-JB


----------



## Mikey

Greg Bimson said:


> Ah, so to come back full circle...
> 
> Who is responsible for raising the rate on the HD pack to $20 a month?


The HD pack been $20/month more for all packages except AEP for the last year.


----------



## jrb531

Greg Bimson said:


> Ah, so to come back full circle...
> 
> Who is responsible for raising the rate on the HD pack to $20 a month?


When I signed that 18 month contract it was more for the 622 reciever than the HD. I had thought that there would be much more HD content than there is now. Dish has me for 13 more months and I'm done with HD.

I wonder what will happen when everything is HD? Will they drop the $20 or will the $20 just be added to everyone bill?

Does anyone feel that they get $20 worth of HD? I find that I watch more "local channels" in HD than the HD channels I pay an extra $20 for. These I can get over the air for free and they even look a bit better.

I know this is the price to pay for being first in getting HD but HD has been out a few years now and the content, aside from a few isolated programs, is either endlessly recycled or filler crap.

I have went from showing friends how great HD is to telling them to save their money. I wonder what will happen when that 18 month contract Dish has with people is over. Unless the content is ramped up substantially I think the only reason people will want to keep HD is if Dish forced them to do so in order to keep the 622.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> When D* raises it's price E* will still be in the ballpark.


Yes it will but when two people are ripping you off do you feel thankfull that one person is ripping you off a bit less than the other?

*smiles*

-JB


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> I wonder what will happen when everything is HD? Will they drop the $20 or will the $20 just be added to everyone bill?


Call me in 10-15 years. Everything won't be in HD until then. We will probably see an aspect ratio change and possibly a jump to ED for most channels, but don't expect all channels to be HD sources.


jrb531 said:


> Yes it will but when two people are ripping you off do you feel thankfull that one person is ripping you off a bit less than the other?


High prices don't make me happy (which is why I'm not pushing a la carte). Just responding to the SkyReport suggestion that E* is overpriced. They are still competitive.

I wish D* would get it over with and just announce their increase. I suppose letting the bad press focus on E* for a while might steal away a few customers. It will be practically a bait and switch if people assume that D*'s prices won't go up just like E*'s.


----------



## Link

E* acts like they do a service to consumers by offering the low cost $19.99 family package. All of their promos based on $19.99 or $29.99 for Top 60 are a joke because the $5.00 locals are tacked on that price so its more than what they show.

Their main package goes up $3.00 with no new channel additions but hey they've got the $19.99 package available so that is all that matters...........


----------



## Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson said:


> Trying to move to a "theme" based scheme is just as impossible, because it is likely that the channel providers do not wish to be lumped into a "non basic" package. There is absolutely no reason why a Lifetime, Nickelodeon, Discovery or ESPN, which are all in the basic package, would put themselves into a package with lesser distribution.





jrb531 said:


> Which is why they have to be forced to. Of course "everyone" wants to be in the "forced package" - you would be stupid not to. But if there is no "basic" package and every channel is in theme packs then the issue of being in certain packs is lessoned.


Please do not confuse my argument with my opinion. My opinion is quite like James Long's and yours, JB. I think it would be great to have a bunch of theme packs, but it just won't happen because...

You want the government to "force" channel providers and multichannel companies to stop the bundling. You want government interference in the "free market". As if the policies of the last six years weren't already shaped by the party that is very pro-business, and in control of Congress with a pro-business Democratic President for the prior six years.

We get into these arguments time and time again. If it isn't the channel distributor bundling to the multi-channel provider, it is the multi-channel provider bundling to their subscribers. If it isn't this fight, it is that the broadcast network industry needs to be reigned in with new laws, by completely changing their business model.

The study the FCC commissioned, which decried that a la carte would be great said that between 12 to 14 channels would cost the same as the basic package. This isn't rocket science.

Most of the industry has been following along the last twelve years with very very very limited government interference. The free market has shaped this industry very much over the past twelve years. I just have a problem with saying "the government needs to be involved", when the main people complaining are those that want their bills lessened by some flaw in how the business works. I certainly don't want the government involved with much of what I do.

And I would seriously prefer that if the multichannel market is going down a "road to ruin", I'd prefer them to ruin themselves, as opposed to have the government step in a ruin them.


----------



## TNGTony

When monopolies are involved (content owners and cable systems) free market does not work. What we have now is what only about 4 companies want, not what the consumers want. They just don't have a choice.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Mikey

TNGTony said:


> When monopolies are involved (content owners and cable systems) free market does not work. What we have now is what only about 4 companies want, not what the consumers want. They just don't have a choice.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


Local government has also been supressing competition with local cable franchises. Some municipalities have a sweet kickback deal from the cable operators for exclusivity, and don't want to lose it. This will hopefully change with the new FCC rules that specify reasonable timeframes for local government to act on new cable/IPTV submissions.

More competition = more choice.


----------



## James Long

Link said:


> E* acts like they do a service to consumers by offering the low cost $19.99 family package. All of their promos based on $19.99 or $29.99 for Top 60 are a joke because the $5.00 locals are tacked on that price so its more than what they show.


One could always get D*'s family package for $29.99 ... only $5 more than E*'s price w/locals. E* advertised the $29.99 AT60 w/locals price a couple of years back. Perhaps that attitude will return some day.

The joke is on D* customers who have little choice - $44.99 or $49.99 for the TC or TC+ packages (with plus being a minor addition) and all that is left to buy is premiums including a couple of sports channels E* has in their AT packages. E* is offering more choices.


Link said:


> Their main package goes up $3.00 with no new channel additions but hey they've got the $19.99 package available so that is all that matters...........


The channel additions were made over the past year. Or would it make you feel better to wait until February each year for any new channels? BTW: Do you really believe that if AT60 was not price guaranteed the price wouldn't go up?


TNGTony said:


> When monopolies are involved (content owners and cable systems) free market does not work. What we have now is what only about 4 companies want, not what the consumers want. They just don't have a choice.


Welcome you your place in society. The bottom of the food chain.


----------



## jrb531

I do not want my bill lowered by all of this. I want options as the prices rise.

The 60 pack is not going up this year because of some promise they made. You can bet it's going up next year.

You see... at the prices rise I want to option of dropping "fringe" channels that I watch sometimes to be able to keep the main channels I love.

If the price keeps going up I will drop more and more channels.

This is how the world works... If I can't afford steak I'll buy hamburger. We do not have this choice with Pay TV and not because the free market likes Pay TV going up at 3 times the cost of inflation for the past 5+ years but because we have ZERO choice.

Don't know about the rest of you but I'm trying to figure out how to keep my Pay TV bills down. 

Each year that Pay TV goes up 3 times the cost of inflation and (if I'm lucky!) my paycheak goes up 1 times the cost of inflation... well something has to give. Year after year after year of 3x price increases and some of us are looking at no Pay TV at all when some of us would be quite happy with our locals and a few "must have" channels.

This is the problem here. I wish I was in the position some of you are in which you pay $120 a month for Pay TV and consider it a bargain. 

$120 x 12 months = $1440
$60 x 12 months = $720

So to many people that $720 means nothing and they want more channels, more selection and all the bells and whistles.

To others, Pay TV is a luxury and before you tell people to just cancel all Pay TV if you can't afford it... it's not as if people can't afford it... it's that the costs are rising faster than their paychecks and we do not have ANY options to lower our bills as long as they keep adding more channels and (according to the studies I linked) using bungling as an excuse to keep rasiing fees.

While it's nice that they have the family package for $19.95 - very affordable for what you get but what about people who want Pay TV, are on a fixed inccome and do not have issues with "content" and would like a similar package?

Dish offered Family Pack to fight off the evil (in their eyes) ala-cart demon that was coming on strong due to content pressures. They did the right thing (Distributors and programmers) ONLY when they were forced to.

They could have done this years ago but only did so when they had to.

Well how do we force them to do the right thing now? The "government boogie man" worked for familiy packs... what about themes or packages that do not require A and B to get C? 

I would love to subscribe to A and C... there are a few channels in the C pack I want but I cannot justify taking B to get C. What about this?

Lets be honest here... everything they have set up right now is done so to maximize "their" profit at our expense. Anything done to change the system now would mean less $$$ for them so they are not going to do it without being forced to.

If the government goes after Microsoft they surely can step in to the unfair Pay TV mess and while I do not want them to set up a price structure see what this would do....

New "JB" Law *smiles*

1. Any channel that costs more than three times the average cost of all channels offered in a package must be offered ala-cart and removed from said package.

What would this do (the 3x number is an example BTW) is:

1. Channels that want to stay in a "basic" (IE largest number of viewers) would have to stay within the ballpark in price of the other channels in that pack.

2. They always have the option to be placed in another more expensive package with "like-cost" channels thus being free of being judged by low cost channels 

3. They could go it alone and form their own higher price package.

This one line rule would fix much of the problem.

Any thoughts?

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson

TNGTony said:


> When monopolies are involved (content owners and cable systems) free market does not work.


Another large misconception. Content owners are not monopolies. But we certainly can't seem to do without the content. Cable systems are monopolies, because for the most part they are given free reign without competition in any given municipality.


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> This is how the world works... If I can't afford steak I'll buy hamburger. We do not have this choice with Pay TV and not because the free market likes Pay TV going up at 3 times the cost of inflation for the past 5+ years but because we have ZERO choice.


AT50/60/100: $22.99 in 2002, $29.99 in 2007 - a 30% increase.
AT100/120/200: $31.99 in 2002, $42.99 in 2007 - a 34% increase.
AT150/180/250: $40.99 in 2002, $52.99 in 2007 - a 29% increase.
AlmostEP: $72.99 in 2002, $89.99 in 2007 - a 23% increase.
CPI: Nov 2001 177.4, Nov 2006 201.5 - Inflation Rate: 13.5%
(November was the most recent I could find - source)

3 times the rate of inflation? Not quite. 


jrb531 said:


> Don't know about the rest of you but I'm trying to figure out how to keep my Pay TV bills down.


Sure, lower my bills. A la carte isn't going to do that (without reducing the number of channels I receive for the price) so you need to find a better way.


jrb531 said:


> Dish offered Family Pack to fight off the evil (in their eyes) ala-cart demon that was coming on strong due to content pressures.


You have ignored the content issue itself. The PRIMARY push was to get "cable" channels to the same broadcast standards as OTA. The "family friendly" channel packs are there for content, not a la carte.


jrb531 said:


> Any channel that costs more than three times the average cost of all channels offered in a package must be offered ala-cart and removed from said package.


That would require confidential contracts to be exposed. Would you like to open your books to public scrutiny?

It would also handicap channels with large costs ... sports channels that are passing through rights fees being charged by the major sports franchises and channels that actually create original content and turn "basic" into a collection of cheap reruns. Yes, reducing the quality of what you are paying for.


jrb531 said:


> They always have the option to be placed in another more expensive package with "like-cost" channels thus being free of being judged by low cost channels


And the tier system turns logarithmic ... $20 for "junk" and loss leaders, $40 for a handful of good channels added to the junk, $80 for a decent selection of channels, $160 for everything.

No thanks.


----------



## cdoyle

Besides all the rate hikes, what really bother me is all the fees. 

Own your receivers, oh there is a '$5 additional receiver fee'
Lease the receiver, oh there is a '$5 lease fee'

$5 DVR FEE or otherwise known as the 'because we can' fee (luckily I have a 508, and can avoid it for now)

Plus all the other Fees that will be created as time goes on.

Gets frustrating.


----------



## TNGTony

Greg Bimson said:


> Another large misconception. Content owners are not monopolies.


In the classic sense, no. Content providers are not. However when a specific popular channel can be held hostage in order to force you to pay for an unpopular channel, that is a monopolistic practice. Again, if, in order to buy a coke at the store you were FORCED to buy a happy meal and this is the only way you could buy that soda ANYWHERE, then Pepsi started doing the same thing there would be congressional hearings for collusion within the hour!

This is what Disney, Viacomm, Discovery, Hearst, Scripps and all the major distributors are doing, but some argue this is okay. I really don't understand the logic

See ya
Tony


----------



## Greg Bimson

Wrong logic, to an extent...

If I pay $100 a ticket to go to the crappy Redskins game, I cannot dictate to the Redskins front office that I'd like a $10 refund because I didn't like the halftime entertainment.

These channels are not stand-alone units. If they were, you'd be paying much more (the a la carte scenario that we keep trying to bury). Case in point...

It costs more as a distributor to purchase only ESPN "the flagship" than if you bought the entire ESPN suite.


----------



## Greg Bimson

But yes, I will agree with you that "tying" can be considered a monopolistic practice. It's just not a monopoly.


----------



## minnow

BobaBird said:


> Instead of a "basic" package, you would have a minimum purchase requirement. That could be a set number of mini packs or a dollar amount. It could be a service fee that covers the provider's overhead with each pack being cheaper with those expenses being billed separately.
> 
> The carrier still makes money, and niche channels get more actual viewers by being bundled in a theme pack instead of an upper B or C tier. Why is this bad?


Because many that argue against free choice are those currently riding tall and high in the gravy train saddle and know full well what the financial implications will be to their wallet if current subscribers were given the choice to drop high cost broadcasters such as ESPN. Those costs would then be dumped on these naysayers. The current business model where ALL of us are held hostage to unwanted programming suits them just fine as they are able to have their inexpensive cake and eat it too.


----------



## minnow

Greg Bimson said:


> When people simply start dumping their multichannel provider. As it is 85 percent of the households in the US subscribe to a multichannel service. This number is not decreasing. So until people leave in droves, it appears that most people are happy to pay the increases when weighed against not having the programming...


Dump them and do what ? What choice other than the "all or nothing" routine do we have. Name me a provider that is not a multichannel service. Your reply is not an even a viable answer. As reported earlier in this thread, 95% of Americans only have one cable provider even available to them. Jeesh.


----------



## jrb531

Greg Bimson said:


> Wrong logic, to an extent...
> 
> If I pay $100 a ticket to go to the crappy Redskins game, I cannot dictate to the Redskins front office that I'd like a $10 refund because I didn't like the halftime entertainment.
> 
> These channels are not stand-alone units. If they were, you'd be paying much more (the a la carte scenario that we keep trying to bury). Case in point...
> 
> It costs more as a distributor to purchase only ESPN "the flagship" than if you bought the entire ESPN suite.


WHY are the channels not stand alone? If the package made sense IE Theme packs then you could at least argue that "you" wanted a certain "type" of programs.

When the packages make NO logic whatsoever aside from trying to force you into more.

Halftime is a bonus. Now unless you want to say that I pay $50 for the history channel and all the other channels are free then the example stands IMHO.

Please do not confuse "self-imposed" rules placed on us by the distributors and programmers to be some form of brick wall that can be unchanged.

Love the system or hate it the only fact in the matter that is not disputable is that the current setup was designed to maximize their profits without any form of logic, fairness or competition.

-JB


----------



## minnow

I wish I was in the business of selling blinders. Eventually they will wear out and some of you guys will need a new set. And as long as the Dish Network logo is over each eye patch, I can sell them for whatever I want and offer them in one color and one size fits all, because very obviously, price, selection and product attractiveness is of no concern as long as the logo is on the product.


----------



## nataraj

Greg Bimson said:


> People have a misconception what a _free market_ is:


I've been an economics student for long. So, no, I don't have misconceptions about "free markets".



> The ability for two parties to make a business arrangement without government intervention.


Just one of the outcomes of free market philosophy.


----------



## jrb531

minnow said:


> Because many that argue against free choice are those currently riding tall and high in the gravy train saddle and know full well what the financial implications will be to their wallet if current subscribers were given the choice to drop high cost broadcasters such as ESPN. Those costs would then be dumped on these naysayers. The current business model where ALL of us are held hostage to unwanted programming suits them just fine as they are able to have their inexpensive cake and eat it too.


BINGO!

If you are a "channel counter" then you love the current system. The more "forced" channels = less $$$ you have to pay for your subsidized channels.

Any change in the system means nothing to you because you want it all... every channel, every minute of every day. More channels = more choice even if it raises the cost of mins watched drastically!

Any change in the system that in any small way allows the masses to unsubscribe to channels they do not watch or want is going to mean more $$$ for the "Channel Counters" so they like things just the way they are.

-JB


----------



## nataraj

James Long said:


> Free markets decided to sell channels in tiers. So, are you for free markets or not?


No. Just some anti free market oligopolies have decided that way ...

Sometime you need govt intervention to ensure market openness.


----------



## james39

Just to make a statement about a-la-carte (kind of a continuation of the discussion started in the court-tv thread). 

I had mentioned networks not charging for their signal, and of course, I did in fact mean OTA. Seeing as both cable and satellite have infrastructure/operational/franchise fees, then understandably, there should be a system charge of some sort to everyone who signs up on say Dish, or on Comcast. Beyond that, I feel a completely a-la-carte system would benefit the end consumer. Even if it's 5x the price per channel, there is a ton of dead weight on there that most of us would rather not be paying for. Understandably, this would bring a quick end to useless channels getting a free ride on cable tiers, and although it might make things more difficult for the industry, it clearly benefits the consumer.

I've seen a lot of alarmist posts in these a-la-carte discussions claiming the prices will skyrocket and we'll all end up paying twice the price for half the channels, but in a free market where many channels will suddenly become desperate to entice viewers to sign up, I seriously doubt they'd shoot themselves in the foot like that. High prices would harm the broadcasters more due to lost subscribers, and we all know that's the last thing they want. 

I think finally, even in an a-la-carte environment, the old familar tier packages will persist, and probably be selected by a majority of people who just want a large package of channels for a reasonable price, I just think it would be a definite plus to have the option to pick up individual channels, instead of being forced into a top 200 (or whatever they're calling it now  )


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> If I pay $100 a ticket to go to the crappy Redskins game, I cannot dictate to the Redskins front office that I'd like a $10 refund because I didn't like the halftime entertainment.


It would be an interesting challenge for them to prevent you from seeing the halftime entertainment. Beyond the scope of the ticket.


----------



## jonsnow

The family package is a joke, and a sick one at best. It's like putting lipstick on a dead pig. Janet Jackson is the only reason for this package. Congress got all hot and bothered over 2 seconds in a halftime show and demanded hearings, this was the results:

1. 90 percent of it's content is fta. 
2. A good local pakage with fta stations is around 11 dollars a month. Locals with the family package is 29.99 dollars a month if you include 5 dollar extra receiver fee for your "child".
3. The only channel worth watching is Foxnews. Yet I'm so sick of politics I really do not care to watch news anymore.
4. Lame brains like George Allen complained because it did not contain espn.


----------



## James Long

jonsnow said:


> Locals with the family package is 29 dollars a month.


$24.99 w/locals on E* ... D* charges $29.99.


----------



## jonsnow

James Long said:


> $24.99 w/locals on E* ... D* charges $29.99.


Your correct! 24.99, what a bargain!

But say you have an extra receiver for your only child, it's 29.99 with the extra receiver fee, I absolutely love that fee.


----------



## James Long

Extra receivers are $5 unless they are HD. Now we are back to $29.99. 
The extra receiver fee is easier to pay than putting each receiver on it's own account.


----------



## jonsnow

James Long said:


> Extra receivers are $5 unless they are HD. Now we are back to $29.99.
> The extra receiver fee is easier to pay than putting each receiver on it's own account.


Yes! 29.99 that's a great price for two receivers and locals and the Sean Hannity show! Glad I would not get that dirty MTV!


----------



## Link

What channels has the AT 120 added over the past year anyway? Some graphic listed SoapNet but that was moved to the 120 from 150 a long time ago...What about the fact they look Lifetime Movie out of it?

I think a lot of people would be happy if Hallmark was moved down to 120 where it belongs.


----------



## Jarrett76

shilton said:


> So NO new channels will be added to any of these packages? Surely Charlie does not think he can toss in a few audio streams and call that anything of major signifigance does he?
> 
> You'd think they'd toss us a bone and move a few channels from the upper tiers into the lower packages or add something new. Comcast carries all ten million MTV and VH1 Channels in this area. It'd be nice to see MTV Hits (the only MTV channel that really still plays all music all the time like it used to be) and I know Charlie gets requests for stations all the time.
> 
> I think its time he cuts the fat and sticks to his promises to give us better service at a better price. If I wanted Siruis, I'd to buy a radio and pay $12.95 a month for my subscription. And the sports channels are getting too pricy these days too. Its not fair that those of us who may never turn on ESPN has to eat all the price increases. Put it in an upper tier or sell it as an add-on and let the people who want it pay for it.
> 
> I pretty much maintain AT180 for Boomerang only since Cartoon Network is such a piece of junk for kids these days. And I occasionally check out the Discovery Channels too, but if Boomerang was in AT120, AT180 would be history for me.


We decided to cut back from the 180 to the basic package, and remove 1 of our receivers. With the music channels added the basic seems to be the best bargain, and many of the channels have the same shows. TVland is now showing mash, so I dont need hallmark anymore, and TLC is showing many of the discovery shows. Shilton, we too liked boomerang because the kids love the looney toons, but we are going to take the money we save from dropping to the basic package and buy the looney toon DVD sets. Much cheaper, and many other boomerang cartoons are popping up on DVD.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> What channels has the AT 120 added over the past year anyway? Some graphic listed SoapNet but that was moved to the 120 from 150 a long time ago...What about the fact they look Lifetime Movie out of it?


Taking a look at the current webpage for AT120, and comparing it to the Fall 1998 Dish channel brochure that I have from when we got Dish, the following channels were added, since 1998. (Price back then was $28.99 for AT100CD.)

Reelz, Telefutura, Oxygen, TV Guide Channel, Univision West, SiTV, SoapNet, Horse Racing TV, NFL Network, IMF, Fuse, Sirius, and about 25 shopping and religious channels. And Romance Classics and IFC were finally split 

Back then there were only two shopping channels on Dish, QVC and HSN. Two channels are no longer with us, CNN FN and America's Voice. And a few channels changed hands a few times and are no longer what they were. (ZDTV/TechTV/G4TechTV/64, CBS Eye On People/Discovery People/Discovery Health)


----------



## Link

Our local cable company is offering cable with Starz/Encore, high speed internet, and phone service for $90 a month for the first year, $115 for the second year, and $130 (reg price) after that.

I don't want to give up my 721 receiver and I still think the Top 60 package is the best value--especially since it is staying at $34.99 with locals. I don't think the Top 120 package will be worth it for $13 more.

One thing with the worst value is the home phone service. The bill has $13-15 in just taxes and fees that don't even make sense. Cable VIP phone is cheaper but still don't really need to pay for that and a cell phone so we are going with just our cell phones now, keeping E*, and paying $50 for high speed cable internet.


----------



## Steve Mehs

The tax on phone service is ridiculous, POTS, VOIP or Cell. My Nextel bill should be $70, two phone account, same features on both phones, except I have Wireless Web on mine so that's $5 extra. The bill comes to $105.97. I have no problem with an E911 tax, if that was $20 a month alone, I'd have no problem with it. It’s the other crap, the list of taxes on the bill is twice as long as all the features that are included in the rate plan.

I'm interested to see what the tax is like on cable telephony here.


----------



## TNGTony

Greg Bimson said:


> Wrong logic, to an extent...
> 
> If I pay $100 a ticket to go to the crappy Redskins game, I cannot dictate to the Redskins front office that I'd like a $10 refund because I didn't like the halftime entertainment..


No. You are right, but how loudly would the fans and city hall be screaming of in order to buy a ticket to the Red Skins game you also had to buy a ticket to the ice capades, the Nationals game and 4 tickets to the Georgetown Basketball games? I bet there would be some fireworks there even if all the tickets were cheaper as a package than when individually sold. The skins would be within their rights to do something like that! I know when University of Cinciannati required a season ticket purchase to the football bearcats before one could buy a season ticket to the basketball bearcats there were some serious fireworks!



> These channels are not stand-alone units. If they were, you'd be paying much more (the a la carte scenario that we keep trying to bury). Case in point...
> 
> It costs more as a distributor to purchase only ESPN "the flagship" than if you bought the entire ESPN suite


I keep hearing that... I just don't believe it! Okay. It's just that simple. If the free market (i.e. subscribers themselves) have the oportunity to buy channels based on their individual merit, the prices would NOT go through the roof. The free market forces would not allow that. Yes, there would be less channels. GOOD! There are too many channels with too little content now! But when you can have a "baby channel" that is viable as a stand-alone unit, I know that most channels with something truly unique and desirable can stand alone just fine. But they would have to do something that they haven't done since the first days of cable... COMPETE FOR VIEWERS AND SUBSCRIBERS!

See ya
Tony


----------



## jrb531

Steve Mehs said:


> Taking a look at the current webpage for AT120, and comparing it to the Fall 1998 Dish channel brochure that I have from when we got Dish, the following channels were added, since 1998. (Price back then was $28.99 for AT100CD.)
> 
> Reelz, Telefutura, Oxygen, TV Guide Channel, Univision West, SiTV, SoapNet, Horse Racing TV, NFL Network, IMF, Fuse, Sirius, and about 25 shopping and religious channels. And Romance Classics and IFC were finally split
> 
> Back then there were only two shopping channels on Dish, QVC and HSN. Two channels are no longer with us, CNN FN and America's Voice. And a few channels changed hands a few times and are no longer what they were. (ZDTV/TechTV/G4TechTV/64, CBS Eye On People/Discovery People/Discovery Health)


Wow.... what a list of compelling content! *smiles*

I've already decided to drop to the 60 pack until my contract runs out. Online Blockbuster has already proved to be a better value for my $$$. Not only do I get new releases but I can rent most, if not all, of those Pay TV shows as soon as the come out on DVD.

So what justified such a large jump in price? Surely those channels have not caused such a jump.

-JB


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> So what justified such a large jump in price? Surely those channels have not caused such a jump.


The other half of the increase is "inflation". 
Increased value as well as inflation join together to raise prices even more.


----------



## Greg Bimson

I said:


> It costs more as a distributor to purchase only ESPN "the flagship" than if you bought the entire ESPN suite.


TNGTony writes:


> I keep hearing that... I just don't believe it! Okay. It's just that simple.


Then this should be real easy, as I have PROOF! 

I looked this one up through Yahoo! Search, and found this little bit. This is a DirecTV SMATV reseller, for residential use. So keep in mind this is closer to wholesale pricing...

From Cipher-ltd.com:

For $3.10 per month, the SMATV provider must show ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, ESPN Alt and ESPN Classic to every unit.

For $3.25 per month, you *lose* ESPNU, ESPN Alt, and ESPN Classic, but must show the flagship, the deuce and ESPNews. Lose three channels, increase 15 cents per month.

For $3.65 per month, you have the right to also lose ESPNews. That is just for ESPN and ESPN2, another gain of 40 cents over the last package.

For $3.85 per month, you can obtain ESPN only.

Six channels of ESPN for $3.15 per month, or the flagship only (one channel) for $3.85 per month.


----------



## James Long

Basically the same numbers that I posted for E*'s bulk service earlier in this thread.


----------



## jrb531

Greg Bimson said:


> I said:TNGTony writes:Then this should be real easy, as I have PROOF!
> 
> I looked this one up through Yahoo! Search, and found this little bit. This is a DirecTV SMATV reseller, for residential use. So keep in mind this is closer to wholesale pricing...
> 
> From Cipher-ltd.com:
> 
> For $3.10 per month, the SMATV provider must show ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, ESPN Alt and ESPN Classic to every unit.
> 
> For $3.25 per month, you *lose* ESPNU, ESPN Alt, and ESPN Classic, but must show the flagship, the deuce and ESPNews. Lose three channels, increase 15 cents per month.
> 
> For $3.65 per month, you have the right to also lose ESPNews. That is just for ESPN and ESPN2, another gain of 40 cents over the last package.
> 
> For $3.85 per month, you can obtain ESPN only.
> 
> Six channels of ESPN for $3.15 per month, or the flagship only (one channel) for $3.85 per month.


How much for all the channels without "forcing" everyone to pay for it?

In other words, as I read it, it costs $3.85 to offer just ESPN ala-cart. So what does it cost for all of them ala-cart?

I know what you are getting at but a programmers "self-imposed" pricing that it set up for no other purpose than to try and "force" a distributor to "force" a package on it's subscribers is not a valid argument and why we need in this case the government to step in and break up these monopolistic practices.

I know the numbers....

$2 from 11,000,000 customers = $22,000,000
$4 from 5,500,000 customers - $22,000,000

You know what? I don't give a flying frig about these numbers. Let those who want certain channels pay the "true cost" of the channels.

This is nothing more than "forced" subsidies. Sure the channels are cheaper because you are forcing people who do not want them to pay for part of your viewing habits.

If everything was ala-cart two things would happen. (numbers pulled out my backside)

Those who only watch maybe 20% of the current channels would see a drop in costs
Those who only watch maybe half the current channels would see little change
Those who want it all would see a HUGE increase in their bills as well they should!

Pay "your" bill and stop asking me to help subsidise your channel count contest. You want it all... you pay for it all.

This is a great example of the silly "your bills will 4x" group. EPSN's "fluff" channels cost them very little. The main channel rises very little between it being forced on everyone and offered ala-cart.

I can promise you this 100%.... if I was allowed to pick the 10 channels I watch from the list of 120 I'm forced to pay for now... my bill would drop a ton!

This is why they will not offer ala-cart.

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson

I reread TNGTony's post, and come to the conclusion that he was saying that he didn't believe a la carte pricing would go through the roof, not that he didn't believe it costs distributors less for the entire ESPN suite than it does for only ESPN.

However, the case in point was still made. The ESPN suite bundle is less than the single ESPN flagship channel. If these channels were to sell only a la carte, either by force (legislation) or by choice, you will see individual pricing rise.

And all I am arguing is that there are many people that would like to see the sports programming segmented straight out of the basic pack, because they believe it will save them money. Unless a law passes or a court of law find the practice of bundling to be prohibited, it is folly to believe that it will ever happen.

When Congress and the FCC first mentioned packaging of a more family-friendly group of channels, it took no time for the cable and DBS companies to offer a family-style package. However, many members of Congress were not pleased that a family-style package lacked any substantive sports offerings. Those members of Congress were basically asking for a pro-consumer approach, yet neither the programming providers nor the multichannel vendors wanted to even start down that road (save Dish Network).


----------



## Greg Bimson

jrb531 said:


> You know what? I don't give a flying frig about these numbers. Let those who want certain channels pay the "true cost" of the channels.


I don't pay ESPN for my programming, I pay DirecTV. The "true cost" of the channels is the package I buy from DirecTV.

We keep fighting about this, but the last thing you want to see is an itemized bill. You will find that the line item for the amount "ESPN Suite" is less than the line item titled "PROFIT".

For someone that doesn't care about the numbers...


> Those who only watch maybe 20% of the current channels would see a drop in costs
> Those who only watch maybe half the current channels would see little change
> Those who want it all would see a HUGE increase in their bills as well they should!
> 
> Pay "your" bill and stop asking me to help subsidise your channel count contest. You want it all... you pay for it all.


It seems like someone cares about the internal workings of a satellite/cable company and their provider.

As long as you have the channels that require a broad distribution, such as a Discovery, A&E, HGTV and Fox News channel, then there will be a need for a baseline package. This isn't like the grocery store, where people must go around to each aisle and find deals. Most people don't want to shop for programming; it is expected in a package.


> I can promise you this 100%.... if I was allowed to pick the 10 channels I watch from the list of 120 I'm forced to pay for now... my bill would drop a ton!
> 
> This is why they will not offer ala-cart.


That is the exact reason why no one wants a la carte other than the consumers. However, it is very debatable if the 10 channels you will procure will be around in a year if they must stand alone. And it is impossible to know how much of a drop in pricing there would be.

*There should be no surprise that one of the major components of releasing numbers to Wall Street in the multichannel market is the Average Revenue Per Unit (ARPU).* The higher the ARPU, the more revenue you are taking in per subscriber. DirecTV's ARPU is about $10 higher than Dish Network's, and I believe leads the multichannel vendors' ARPU (as opposed to the cable triple-play bundles). If those numbers drop because half of the subscribers go to an a la carte programming menu, then there will be plenty of shock economics to get back to status quo; namely raises in the a la carte pricing. That would then be when theme packs would be created. And ESPN will still be in the lowest basic tier.


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> In other words, as I read it, it costs $3.85 to offer just ESPN ala-cart.


No, it costs the subscriber $3.85 for the single ESPN channel *IF* the MDU agrees to supply that channel to all units and PAY for ALL of their units whether or not the end viewer is viewing that channel. No where in the published numbers is the price that E* or D* is paying ESPN for the service.

It is a bulk rate --- much like the reduced bulk rate E* pays for having a channel available to 12 millions sunscribers instead of 9 million. In this case they are just not charging the MDUs with 100 units more than the MDUs with 10,000.


----------



## jrb531

Greg Bimson said:


> I reread TNGTony's post, and come to the conclusion that he was saying that he didn't believe a la carte pricing would go through the roof, not that he didn't believe it costs distributors less for the entire ESPN suite than it does for only ESPN.
> 
> However, the case in point was still made. The ESPN suite bundle is less than the single ESPN flagship channel. If these channels were to sell only a la carte, either by force (legislation) or by choice, you will see individual pricing rise.
> 
> And all I am arguing is that there are many people that would like to see the sports programming segmented straight out of the basic pack, because they believe it will save them money. Unless a law passes or a court of law find the practice of bundling to be prohibited, it is folly to believe that it will ever happen.
> 
> When Congress and the FCC first mentioned packaging of a more family-friendly group of channels, it took no time for the cable and DBS companies to offer a family-style package. However, many members of Congress were not pleased that a family-style package lacked any substantive sports offerings. Those members of Congress were basically asking for a pro-consumer approach, yet neither the programming providers nor the multichannel vendors wanted to even start down that road (save Dish Network).


If sports were in it's own package then people could add sports to the family pack.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> No, it costs the subscriber $3.85 for the single ESPN channel *IF* the MDU agrees to supply that channel to all units and PAY for ALL of their units whether or not the end viewer is viewing that channel. No where in the published numbers is the price that E* or D* is paying ESPN for the service.
> 
> It is a bulk rate --- much like the reduced bulk rate E* pays for having a channel available to 12 millions sunscribers instead of 9 million. In this case they are just not charging the MDUs with 100 units more than the MDUs with 10,000.


Well if $3.85 is the cost of ESPN when you force all 11,000,000 to pay it then this only pisses me off more.

Let me ask you this... how much would HBO cost if you forced all 11,000,000 people to pay for it? Surely that $15 would not drop to $4 but it would go down a ton!

ESPN is a premium set of channels than should be in a separate package. These numbers prove it.

$3.85 is a ton of $$$ if that is the super special "forced" rate.

Let's give the spoiled overpaid jocks a few more million each... after all we can just raise that $3.85 to $5 or $10 or the skys the limits and there is nothing we can do about it because choice in Pay TV is either yes to pay tv or no.

grrrrrrrrrr

-JB


----------



## koralis

> Cipher-ltd.com:
> Six channel of ESPN for $3.15 per month, or the flagship only (one channel) for $3.85 per month .


So the other channels have negative value? Granted, that's my thinking on the matter but wouldn't assume that's ESPN's position.


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> Well if $3.85 is the cost of ESPN when you force all 11,000,000 to pay it then this only pisses me off more.


Why? The lowest package that E* has ESPN in also includes ESPN2 and ESPN News. That is $3.25 on the rate chart shown (not $3.85).

And you are still using that word COST. That $3.85 ($3.25) is the PRICE CHARGED to bulk MDU purchasers of the channel. Not what E* pays ESPN for the channel(s).


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> Why? The lowest package that E* has ESPN in also includes ESPN2 and ESPN News. That is $3.25 on the rate chart shown (not $3.85).
> 
> And you are still using that word COST. That $3.85 ($3.25) is the PRICE CHARGED to bulk MDU purchasers of the channel. Not what E* pays ESPN for the channel(s).


Ok I misunderstood. So correct me here...

ESPN charges $3.85 to MDU for their main channel ala-cart but only $3.25 for their main channel and fluff channels if the package is forced on all the subscribers?

-JB


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> Ok I misunderstood. So correct me here...
> 
> ESPN charges $3.85 to MDU for their main channel ala-cart but only $3.25 for their main channel and fluff channels if the package is forced on all the subscribers?


DirecTV and Dish Network charge a bulk MDU subscriber $3.85 per unit for subscribing all of their units to just ESPN.
They charge the same bulk MDU subscriber $3.25 if they also agree to provide ESPN2 and ESPN News.

Nowhere in these numbers is what ESPN is charging D* and E*.

Reread that line again. Repeat as needed.


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> DirecTV and Dish Network charge a bulk MDU subscriber $3.85 per unit for subscribing all of their units to just ESPN.
> They charge the same bulk MDU subscriber $3.25 if they also agree to provide ESPN2 and ESPN News.
> 
> Nowhere in these numbers is what ESPN is charging D* and E*.
> 
> Reread that line again. Repeat as needed.


So if a distributor agrees to "take" more channels they get charged less. I'm going to assume it's because they make up the revenue with ad $$$'s because otherwise it does not make sense to charge less for more.

-JB


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> So if a distributor agrees to "take" more channels they get charged less. I'm going to assume it's because they make up the revenue with ad $$$'s because otherwise it does not make sense to charge less for more.


And those ad dollars (being able to charge advertisers more because your channels are in "x" number of homes) are what is REALLY subsidizing the cost of the channels. Channel providers need cash from systems, but they also need high "subscriber" counts to collect the rest of the money needed to provide a channel in a commercial system.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

:blackeye: Blame the price increase on corperates wanting big bucks. The big bucks, on what ever you pay. We all need to get use to paying the increase or we will just be punishing us.. As For Court Tv, we can all pitch in and watch Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown. Atleast there some court room.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

I read today on another website that I can't remember now, that within 5 years internet tv will replace both satellite and cable for most people's access to their favorite programs. The content will be available by video on demand and they won't need channels as everything will be vod. THis of course will destroy the entire current model for today and maybe why DISH is pushing into the internet fray next month with Dish-online. They must want to get it started on their vip receivers so they can keep their sat customers when the tide turns. They promise that within 2 years the video picture quality will improve from today's artifact full streaming video. I guess that 2012 is the year for us to get even with the price increases and the content providers.


----------



## joebird

Dish is going to need something compelling to compete with what looks to be coming from Cable and DirecTV:

http://www.electronichouse.com/article/companies_battle_to_serve_you_and_your_tv/C191


----------



## tomcrown1

Looks like dish may lose San Francisco. I just checked with comcast and for what I will be paying for Dish everything pack with HD I will get comcast HD everything pack plus phone service plus internet service.

How can Dish compete with that??


----------



## joebird

I was just looking into that as well. Is the Comcast HD-DVR box any good? The Tivo series 3 looks nice, but it's also expensive.


----------



## BobaBird

James Long said:


> And those ad dollars (being able to charge advertisers more because your channels are in "x" number of homes) are what is REALLY subsidizing the cost of the channels. Channel providers need cash from systems, but they also need high "subscriber" counts to collect the rest of the money needed to provide a channel in a commercial system.


Not that I know how Madison Ave thinks, but wouldn't subscribers be more valuable, being a more known demographic, than "subscribers" who may never tune to the channel?


Jarrett76 said:


> ... we too liked boomerang because the kids love the looney toons, but we are going to take the money we save from dropping to the basic package ...


Boomerang could have had a subscriber but instead has lost a "subscriber" because the channel is not available as an add-on to a core package or as part of a theme pack with other channels the little Jarretts watch. Now the carrier is getting less profit because


> ... and buy the looney toon DVD sets. Much cheaper,


How long will those DVD sets remain much cheaper if this becomes a larger trend and Pay TV subscription and advertising fees cover less of the production costs?


----------



## jonsnow

Somebody has to pay for India's healthcare I guess.


----------



## TNGTony

Greg Bimson said:


> I reread TNGTony's post, and come to the conclusion that he was saying that he didn't believe a la carte pricing would go through the roof, not that he didn't believe it costs distributors less for the entire ESPN suite than it does for only ESPN.


Well, yes and no. Yes you have are correct that I don't believe that prices would go though the roof with a la carte due to market pressures. If a channel prices itself out of the market, it will fail no matter how good it is as long as it has to stand alone.

However I ALSO don't believe that ESPN by itself is more expensive individually than the entire suite. I know that they want to CHARGE a punitive fee because they want you to get the entire suite, but that in itself is a monopolistic practice! That is EXACTLY what needs to be stopped with a fine of double the corporate profits for the last year for each occurrence!

I do not really blame the cable systems or satellite companies for the lack of a la carte, though they are complicit by not fighting the trend from the beginning. It is the channel distributors who are committing the offense of monopolistic tactics to force themselves on a mostly apathetic public.

See ya
Tony


----------



## killzone

Greg Bimson said:


> I said:TNGTony writes:Then this should be real easy, as I have PROOF!
> 
> I looked this one up through Yahoo! Search, and found this little bit. This is a DirecTV SMATV reseller, for residential use. So keep in mind this is closer to wholesale pricing...
> 
> From Cipher-ltd.com:
> 
> For $3.10 per month, the SMATV provider must show ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, ESPN Alt and ESPN Classic to every unit.
> 
> For $3.25 per month, you *lose* ESPNU, ESPN Alt, and ESPN Classic, but must show the flagship, the deuce and ESPNews. Lose three channels, increase 15 cents per month.
> 
> For $3.65 per month, you have the right to also lose ESPNews. That is just for ESPN and ESPN2, another gain of 40 cents over the last package.
> 
> For $3.85 per month, you can obtain ESPN only.
> 
> Six channels of ESPN for $3.15 per month, or the flagship only (one channel) for $3.85 per month.


If what you are saying is true, then the pricing for dish should be as follows:

Top 180 $30
Top 120 $40
Top 60 $50

Right? The more channels you get the cheaper it should be?


----------



## jrb531

killzone said:


> If what you are saying is true, then the pricing for dish should be as follows:
> 
> Top 180 $30
> Top 120 $40
> Top 60 $50
> 
> Right? The more channels you get the cheaper it should be?


It would be if the distributors were the root cause of the problem. You see the distributors "have" competition. Cable-DTV-Dish-Bells do compete for the right to distribute programming from a pool of programming providers. While I am not naive and think that the distributors do not have "some" blame I place 90% of the blame with the programmers who added so many strings to their contracts that it often forces the distributors to do things they might not want to.

Can anyone defend these monopolistic practices?

1. We will sell you channel A only if you also take channel B
2. We will only sell you our channel if you place it in a certain package
3. If you do not take "all" our channels we will change you a punitive cost for the channel you do want

The distributors hands are tied. Dish did not stop offering ala-cart because it was unpopular. It costs them nothing to offer both ala-cart "and" packages. What happened is that little by little the programmers either added special contract rules or raised prices on single channels to the point in which Dish was not able to offer them anymore.

Look I know how business works. If you buy in bulk you get bulk prices but the prices are always tied in some way to real world costs. While Texas Instruments was able to "dump" product in the 70's at a loss to kill competition then would be taken to court if they did that today as is often what happens when you "dump" on the market.

We all know that it should cost more to provide a channel to less people but to set prices of single channels or setting prices only if "all" your customers take the product is wrong!

So, for example, I expect ESPN to cost $3 if all 11,000,000 Dish subscribers do not take it but the prices whould be in line with reality and other type of "bulk" product.

Example: (numbers made up)

Current setup (lots of guess work here and done for example only)

ESPN:

11,000,000 subscribers = $3 each ($33,000,000 total revenue)
1,000,000 subscribers = $33 each ($33,000,000 total revenue)

Now since when does any business have a fixed profit? I'll tell you when... when they have no competition the government steps in and makes sure the sole company does not gouge the consumer like utility companies. While the distributors have competition, the programmers do not!

If ESPN is worried that they are not popular enough to attract enough sales to remain profitable then they have to do what any other business on the plante does. Either do things to attract new customers, lower prices to do the same or both. Right now ESPN could stop all programming and show a test pattern (I'm being silly of course) and we would have to continue to pay them or cancel all Pay TV. Is this right?

What should happen, IMHO, is this:

ESPN:

11,000,000 subscribers = $3.00
8,000,000 subscribers = $3.25
5,000,000 subscribers = $3.50
1,000,000 subscribers = $4.00

In other words "encourage" and "reward" bulk purchases in which the distributors will "encourage" more of it's customers to subscribe to ESPN by "passing on" these saving to their customers.

The distributors, as the norm, will add their costs and compete bases on their costs and the programmers will either compete with like channels or with themselves as they try to "lure" more subscriptions and thus more profits.

Why does HBO not tell Dish that they will double their cost to them unless Dish places HBO in the 60 package and force everyone to pay for it? Think about this.

Why is HBO differnt that ESPN or any other "set" of channels. HBO is no longer about movies but rather sports, movies, original shows, etc... just like the other channels. Logic would suggest that if you "forced" everyone to take HBO that it would be much cheaper for everyone. Now if you say that not everyone wants HBO could you not say the same for ESPN or any other "set" of channels?

-JB


----------



## jonsnow

Espn is a product most customers do not want in their package because they not only never watch it but costs too much($10). HBO would be a product most people would want because pure unedited movies are in high demand, aka netflicks. Pure supply and demand would dictate that dish offer an ATplus "entertainment" package, an at120 package(the most popular package), minus channels that nobody cares about, but with some of the most watched channels(at most there are 25-30 that are better than static) plus hbo or starz, your choice of movie package at the same price as netflicks($19).


----------



## cdoyle

Today listening to the radio, I heard a commercial from Dish. 

It said something to the effect, 
'Did you know that cable is raising it's rates 6%!! It's time to move to dish network'

I just couldn't believe they were still trying the 'we don't raise our rates' approach.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

cdoyle said:


> Today listening to the radio, I heard a commercial from Dish.
> 
> It said something to the effect,
> 'Did you know that cable is raising it's rates 6%!! It's time to move to dish network'
> 
> I just couldn't believe they were still trying the 'we don't raise our rates' approach.


 Dish is Cable now. There is no difference anylonger as they both go up each year . Both are PIGS! One by dish and one by cable. THis years $10.00 increase by Dish for the AEP +HD pack is ridiculous and for ever tarnishes their image in my eyes. I can no longer recommend them to anyone that wants to save money. IF you have lots of disposable income and don't mind yearly increases ,then DISH is for you.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Dish is Cable now. There is no difference anylonger as they both go up each year . Both are PIGS! One by dish and one by cable. THis years $10.00 increase by Dish for the AEP +HD pack is ridiculous and for ever tarnishes their image in my eyes. I can no longer recommend them to anyone that wants to save money. IF you have lots of disposable income and don't mind yearly increases ,then DISH is for you.


 FOLKS CABLE TV IS GOING UP MORE THE DISH NETWORK. Mediacom cable tv has negiotated with Sinclair and it sound to me like sinclair doesn't want to be carried. Advantage Dish network on Sinclair viewers.. STAY WITH DISH NETWORK. NO REASON TO CHANGE. CORPERATE C.O. OF OF S.C BROADCAST ARE GETING MORE ALL ON ACCOUNT. E* HAS PROMISED US THE LOWEST PRICES, BUT SINCE THE N.A.B. AND DAVID K. REHR, PULLED THE TRIGGER ON THE 15TH OF DECEMBER IS WHY. DIRECTV IS ALSO JUMPING THERE PRICES. DISH NETWORK STILL HAS THE LOWEST PRICES.. THANK YOU Don't give up. Thank You James for the U.S. Supreme court info, All E* can hope is they hear is case..


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

TNGTony said:


> Well, yes and no. Yes you have are correct that I don't believe that prices would go though the roof with a la carte due to market pressures. If a channel prices itself out of the market, it will fail no matter how good it is as long as it has to stand alone.
> 
> However I ALSO don't believe that ESPN by itself is more expensive individually than the entire suite. I know that they want to CHARGE a punitive fee because they want you to get the entire suite, but that in itself is a monopolistic practice! That is EXACTLY what needs to be stopped with a fine of double the corporate profits for the last year for each occurrence!
> 
> I do not really blame the cable systems or satellite companies for the lack of a la carte, though they are complicit by not fighting the trend from the beginning. It is the channel distributors who are committing the offense of monopolistic tactics to force themselves on a mostly apathetic public.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


 Hi Tony. I hope alot of these people not consider DirecTV or Cable tv. There rates are going up as much as $12.00 for everything. E* has been more then honest with us. I bank my 8 years with Dish Network, and believe c.e.o.'s of corperate headin operations like Viacom are using $$$BIG$$$BUCK$ from our monthly service pay.. Cost will be even more when hi defintion is many eye sours. For many other just pay the 4 or 5 buck more each month to the cry babies. The Cry babies were also belly aching over royalty fee. I have both xm and sirius, and by all means pay royalty fee's , and I bet Charlie Ergan My Man will have to will have to drop Sirius, there charging us too much for Sirius. Remember royalty fee's will stress dish out. What does it mean to say forget?


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

cdoyle said:


> Today listening to the radio, I heard a commercial from Dish.
> 
> It said something to the effect,
> 'Did you know that cable is raising it's rates 6%!! It's time to move to dish network'
> 
> I just couldn't believe they were still trying the 'we don't raise our rates' approach.


 Cable tv not only raise there rates . A high number of cable companies drop WGN AND WTBS for good, and along with that drop Sinclair tv stations.. The time has come, for mr. Ergen to consider superstation in hi definition. WTBS HD, WGN HD, WWOR HD, WPIX HD, WSBK HD, KWGN HD AND KTLA HD. gETTING RETRANSMISSION CONSENT WON'T BE EASY, especially January 1st, 2009 year.


----------



## harsh

Mike D-CO5 said:


> THis years $10.00 increase by Dish for the AEP +HD pack is ridiculous and for ever tarnishes their image in my eyes.


While you've recited this claim ad nauseum, you have yet to illustrate how the price for AEP+HD is out of line with the rest of Dish's offerings or those of competitors.

To my mind, the price that is out of line is the current HD Platinum package. I claim that it is $5 cheaper than it should be. Today, you would expect it to be $20 more than AEP, but it is only $15 more.


----------



## John W

harsh said:


> While you've recited this claim ad nauseum, you have yet to illustrate how the price for AEP+HD is out of line with the rest of Dish's offerings or those of competitors.
> 
> To my mind, the price that is out of line is the current HD Platinum package. I claim that it is $5 cheaper than it should be. Today, you would expect it to be $20 more than AEP, but it is only $15 more.


Its out of line with what I have been paying for it.Its a $10 increase from my previous bill, period.


----------



## Jim5506

John W said:


> Its out of line with what I have been paying for it.Its a $10 increase from my previous bill, period.


So, you don't mind the rest of us subsidising your viewing habits?


----------



## TNGTony

1) That has nothing to do with it
2) Business 101: a bulk discount is not a subsidy by those who don't buy bulk. It is an incentive to make those that would buy less to get them to buy more. More volume=more cash flow. More cash flow=more buying power more stable business.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Mike D-CO5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THis years $10.00 increase by Dish for the AEP +HD pack is ridiculous and for ever tarnishes their image in my eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> While you've recited this claim ad nauseum, you have yet to illustrate how the price for AEP+HD is out of line with the rest of Dish's offerings or those of competitors.
Click to expand...

Everyone else (non-Platinum) pays $20 for access to the current 30 HD channels. Platinum subscribers today pay net $15. The "subsidy" is about to go away.

On E* one will pay $109.99 for "everything" plus 30 national HD channels (including PPV). ($114.99 w/locals)
On D* one already pays $109.99 for "everything" plus 10 national HD channels (including PPV).
This is _after_ E*'s 2007 price increase and _before_ D*'s 2007 price increase.
(It looks like D* is going to be the first across the $100 line for non-HD programming.)

E* in line with competitors? Yes. It seems like when E* reaches up to D*'s prices D* pulls away! Ticked at a $3 increase in AT120/AT180? Watch for D*'s $5 increase in TC and above. An 11% increase for TC to compare against the 7% increase for AT120.

E*'s in line with the competition - IMHO still doing better than the competition.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

harsh said:


> While you've recited this claim ad nauseum, you have yet to illustrate how the price for AEP+HD is out of line with the rest of Dish's offerings or those of competitors..


 The point is if you had the platinum pack it was only $15.00 for the hd channels since you subbed to everything and the fact you either paid to lease a 622 at the price of $299.00 back last year in February or you paid for the receiver out right for at the time it was $799.99. I bought two of my 622 receivers by trading my 942 receivers in to dishdept.com . I ended up with paying the price of one 622 with the trade in value . Now with the $5.00 increase in AEP and the elimination of the $5.00 discount on hd it is $10.00 increase over what I was paying which of course makes your taxes go up too. I feel like the rug was pulled out from under me. I will say it ONE MORE TIME: This is the BIGGEST INCREASE I 've ever seen for one year on ANY one package, by either Satellite or Cable .

But since it makes you nauseated to hear it why don't you just ignore my posts from now on.


----------



## James Long

Yes, your 10% increase is worse than any other increase ever ...


----------



## Mike D-CO5

James Long said:


> Everyone else (non-Platinum) pays $20 for access to the current 30 HD channels. Platinum subscribers today pay net $15. The "subsidy" is about to go away.
> 
> On E* one will pay $109.99 for "everything" plus 30 national HD channels (including PPV).
> On D* one already pays $109.99 for "everything" plus 10 national HD channels (including PPV).
> This is _after_ E*'s 2007 price increase and _before_ D*'s 2007 price increase.
> (It looks like D* is going to be the first across the $100 line for non-HD programming.)
> 
> E* in line with competitors? Yes. It seems like when E* reaches up to D*'s prices D* pulls away! Ticked at a $3 increase in AT120/AT180? Watch for D*'s $5 increase in TC and above. An 11% increase for TC to compare against the 7% increase for AT120.
> 
> E*'s in line with the competition - IMHO still doing better than the competition.


 Dish may be in line with the competition with the increases to you , but when you add all the extra Bullsh*t fees that Dish hits you with for trying to save money by downgrading to a cheaper pack , they run out in FIRST place of all other competition. I have talked about this till I am blue in the face and I guess there will always be a Dish pom pom waiver out in front everytime someone downs them . DISH has crossed the line with me and this single $10.00 increase on one package. Add to that the extra nonsense fees and they are to expensive .

It has made me give my money to Blockbuster.com since they are reasonable with unlimited dvds , 3 at a time for $17.99. I used to pay Dish about 36.99 extra to do the same, but no loner. DIsh has priced themselves right out the door in my book.

If they think they can keep adding hd channels and jacking the price up each year for their best subs, they will price themselves out of the market for more and more subscribers. IF the hd channel is a simulcast of the sd channel like TNT there should be no extra price for it. OR like the premium channels like SHowtime/Hbo/STarz , you get them for free if you sub to the sd pack. IF Dish thinks they can keep hiking the price of hd and sd without considering the price to the average subs , they're wrong.

IF you want the best hd dvr you have to sub to the most programming or you get hit by the fees. IF you sub to the most programming you get the biggest price increases. If you try to downgrade to save money, AGAIN they hit you with more fees than almost the family pack in programming.

They are quickly losing the title of low cost leader and pricing themselves right out of the market for many subs. I love Dish and have had them for 10 years this month but come on . ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Lose some of these bullsh*t fees and try to cut costs where they can or they will lose to the competition soon enough. The future is _Internet Tv. _


----------



## Mike D-CO5

James Long said:


> Yes, your 10% increase is worse than any other increase ever ...


 Alright James , You seem to have no sympathy for anyone elses problems so I will stop posting to this thread. It is obvious you can not write anything to counter what I have written to challenge it or even comprehend the reasons I have already posted. Answer me this ? WHat other company have you ever seen hike a programming pack by $10.00 in one year?

Keep shaking your sarcastic Dish pom poms all you want.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Mike D-CO5 said:


> The point is if you had the platinum pack it was only $15.00 for the hd channels since you subbed to everything and the fact you either paid to lease a 622 at the price of $299.00 back last year in February or you paid for the receiver out right for at the time it was $799.99.


When were these the prices?

I am not 100% sure, but I would swear that the lease upgrade was $250.00 last Feb... and the full purchase price was $649.99 when the ViP622 was first released. I cannot remember the prices you quoted, but maybe my memory is fuzzy since I waited until the end of the year for my upgrade.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Alright James , You seem to have no sympathy for anyone elses problems so I will stop posting to this thread. It is obvious you can not write anything to counter what I have written to challenge it or even comprehend the reasons I have already posted. Answer me this ? WHat other company have you ever seen hike a programming pack by $10.00 in one year?


Not that James needs defending... but you say he "cannot write anything to counter" what you have written. Am I missing somethine or has he and I and others not posted replies that clearly countered what you are saying?

Dish did not raise the everything pack by $10 this year. They raised it by $5, and repealed the $5 discount they were previously giving to you and only you everything pack subscribers.

Yes, the net result is your programming will cost you $10 more this year than last... but that would also be true if you were receiving the $10-for-10 months rebate... would you claim that Dish raised your bill $10 when that offer expired too? Or worse, what about the folks who were new customers getting the $20-for-10 months rebate? Their bills will go up $20 when their limited time offer expires!

Wow, $20 + the new $5+ rates... and you could say their bill jumped by 50%! And yet, most intelligent folks realize their bill didn't increase that much because of raised rates... but moreso because a limited time price-break is expiring.

All that of course is not officially announced yet to customers yet anyway, though the retailers have seen the new pricing info that is supposed to take effect next month.


----------



## James Long

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Dish may be in line with the competition with the increases to you , but when you add all the extra Bullsh*t fees that Dish hits you with for trying to save money by downgrading to a cheaper pack , they run out in FIRST place of all other competition.


A $5 one time fee that can be waived in certain circumstances? Or are you talking about the DVR fees that E* requires of non-Platinum/AT180 subscribers? You seem to have a problem understanding what a discount is.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> I have talked about this till I am blue in the face and I guess there will always be a Dish pom pom waiver out in front everytime someone downs them.


Or a Dish basher who will for all purposes become a one track record. It sucks to be a Platinum subscriber -- we got it. Move on.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> IF Dish thinks they can keep hiking the price of hd and sd without considering the price to the average subs , they're wrong.


The average sub is seeing no price increase in HD. Only those subs who took the Platinum package will be seeing a HD increase.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> They are quickly losing the title of low cost leader and pricing themselves right out of the market for many subs.


And yet they remain cheaper than the competition. Priced out of the market, nope.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> Alright James , You seem to have no sympathy for anyone elses problems so I will stop posting to this thread.


It appears you have no sympathy for those who have paid full price for HD ($20) for the past year. Your only sympathetic comments seem to be connected to the fact that you might be joining them.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> Answer me this ? WHat other company have you ever seen hike a programming pack by $10.00 in one year?


Comcast.

DishHD Platinum is being discontinued - it is not going up in price.


----------



## James Long

BTW: A new package coming in February (for those not taking AEP)

Dish DVR Advantage - AT200 w/locals + DVR Fee = $49.99 (save $3.98)
Dish DVR Advantage - AT250 w/locals + DVR Fee + any premium $69.99 (save $6.97 or $8.97)
_*Price Guaranteed through 1/31/2009* on both packages
18 month commitment or CC autopay required_

Add DishHD to those and one gets a $69.99 or $89.99 pricetag.


----------



## INHUMANITY

Just upgraded to the ViP622 and switched from Top 60 to Bronze.

The website still mentions HD Bronze, Silver, etc.

Does anybody know if the updating programming info will be reflected on their site?


----------



## harsh

INHUMANITY said:


> Does anybody know if the updating programming info will be reflected on their site?


It will likely show up on the website when it goes into effect and not until. Please read the original post in this thread.


----------



## James Long

The new structure does not go into effect until February 1st.
With HD Bronze you will end up with AT100 + Dish HD for the same price as Bronze.
Don't forget to file for your rebate(s)!


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> BTW: A new package coming in February (for those not taking AEP)
> 
> Dish DVR Advantage - AT200 w/locals + DVR Fee = $49.99 (save $3.98)
> Dish DVR Advantage - AT250 w/locals + DVR Fee + any premium $69.99 (save $6.97 or $8.97)
> _*Price Guaranteed through 1/31/2009* on both packages
> 18 month commitment or CC autopay required_
> 
> Add DishHD to those and one gets a $69.99 or $89.99 pricetag.


If they think I'm going to add to the length of my current contract they are nuts!

This is nothing but a "hook" to try and lock people in to a long term contract.

Me thinks Dish has been looking at cell phone contracts 

I'll pay the few extra $$$'s per month till I'm free and clear and then see what my options are.

-JB

P.S. Now if I do not have to sign an 18 month extension as long as I pay with a CC then fine


----------



## harsh

Speaking of the "Everything Pak", the website doesn't mention Cinemax. What channels does AEP and DishHD Platinum not include?


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> P.S. Now if I do not have to sign an 18 month extension as long as I pay with a CC then fine


That apparently is an option. No commitment if you sign up with CC AutoPay (except E* committing to the DVRAdvantage price).


harsh said:


> Speaking of the "Everything Pak", the website doesn't mention Cinemax. What channels does AEP and DishHD Platinum not include?


The five channels of Cinemax are included in Platinum and AEP. The reason they are missing from the website is a mystery (although IIRC E* filed a program access complaint against Cinemax at the FCC, so there is some background dispute going on).

Not in AEP:
Playboy TV and other adult channels.
HD (unless you sign up for Platinum / AEP + HD)
Sports Pack (all RSNs - you only get "your" RSN)
Foreign language channels
Baby First TV (premium sunscription service)
Other PPV offerings


----------



## TNGTony

Add to that list:

Superstations Pack (KTLA, KWGN, WSBK, WPIX, WWOR)
Local Channels (there is an AEP + Locals option)

Remember that AEP is nothing more than AT180 (250) + MegaMovie Pack (which is all the HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and Starz including the HD versions of these channels. However to get the HD channels you have to have the equipment and, if you do not ave the HD pack, pay an HD enabling fee of $6 a month.) + NBA TV

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long

I'm always forgetting something that isn't in the Almost Everything Pack.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

NBATV is really an oddball... if I remember correctly you only get NBATV if you sign up for NBA League Pass OR the Everything pack. It isn't in any of the sports-pack options... which makes it a strange channel.


----------



## James Long

NBATV is included in the $5.99 all sports package on E* and the $12.00 all sports package on D*.
NBATV is also included in AEP on E*. The entire all sports package is included in TCPremier on D*
(probably why "everything" costs more on D* even though there are less channels ).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Ah, I missed that... I wasn't paying attention that NBATV was also in the multi-sport pack.


----------



## James Long

Multi-Sports Description


----------



## INHUMANITY

James Long said:


> The new structure does not go into effect until February 1st.
> With HD Bronze you will end up with AT100 + Dish HD for the same price as Bronze.
> Don't forget to file for your rebate(s)!


So they're just dropping the 'HD' in their programming names?

As for the rebate, the CSR gave me the ViP622 for $99 instead of $199. She also said I get $20 a month off my service for 10 months.

Would I still qualify for the rebate?


----------



## James Long

The rebates are good for signups through May 31st, 2007. E* likes to extend offers so they may continue after that.


----------



## INHUMANITY

James Long said:


> The rebates are good for signups through May 31st, 2007. E* likes to extend offers so they may continue after that.


Cool... I'll go ahead and give it a shot. Can't hurt anything by trying.


----------



## INHUMANITY

So do you guys think the name change of HD Bronze, Silver, etc is just a marketing thing or did they change it for some other reason.

I'm curious about this one... My guess is they don't want people associating Bronze or Silver with a "cheap" package and that's why they're going with AT100+HD.

Whatcha guys thinking?


----------



## James Long

IMHO they are trying to lose Platinum which would have a price point over $100. 

Then again we have spent the past year trying to explain the medal/metal packages and have had some confusion over the Bronze=AT60+HD issue. It seems easier to use the definition as the name than to use the name. The channel count based names have worked well for the past few years. Might as well keep using them,


----------



## tnsprin

James Long said:


> IMHO they are trying to lose Platinum which would have a price point over $100.
> 
> Then again we have spent the past year trying to explain the medal/metal packages and have had some confusion over the Bronze=AT60+HD issue. It seems easier to use the definition as the name than to use the name. The channel count based names have worked well for the past few years. Might as well keep using them,


Did I just see an announced price roll back on AEP from CES 2007? $79.99. If so the Platinum users will not be seeing a $10 increase.


----------



## joebird

I was just thinking the same thing myself. Can anyone confirm the $79.99 price? Or is that the non-updated price (and w/o locals, of course)?


----------



## James Long

Current price is $84.99 ... Should be going to $89.99 unless E* changed it's plans.


----------



## MadScientist

What happens to me, I have the AEP package but no HD will my bill go up too. I am usint the 721.

Thanks for your replys.


----------



## joebird

Apparently the $79.99 price was a quote from Charlie at the press conference, and we all know how accurate he is.


----------



## eatonjb

so does anyone know what the price change is really going to be??


----------



## James Long

The retailers were apparently told + $5, making AEP $89.99. They have not told us yet.

BTW: The slides at CES had the new $42.99 price for AT200 listed.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

James Long said:


> A $5 one time fee that can be waived in certain circumstances? Or are you talking about the DVR fees that E* requires of non-Platinum/AT180 subscribers? You seem to have a problem understanding what a discount is.Or a Dish basher who will for all purposes become a one track record. It sucks to be a Platinum subscriber -- we got it. Move on.The average sub is seeing no price increase in HD. Only those subs who took the Platinum package will be seeing a HD increase.And yet they remain cheaper than the competition. Priced out of the market, nope.It appears you have no sympathy for those who have paid full price for HD ($20) for the past year. Your only sympathetic comments seem to be connected to the fact that you might be joining them.Comcast.
> 
> DishHD Platinum is being discontinued - it is not going up in price.


 It is obvious that you will see no one elses points but your own. I guess that is why you are the Super Moderater. Feel free to continue to cut down your posters here if it disagrees with your Dish belief system. I too love Dish, but I am not afraid to discuss their faults too, in hopes they will see them and change them. As a 10 year Dish subscriber with #3 dish accounts I have earned the right to say what I feel about their price increases. They must have listened about the extra fees as they have now added the Dish dvr advantage with NO EXTRA FEES!

You can continue to post only what you want to believe and down the rest of us that disagree. It doesn't change my beliefs . Although I am a little disappointed in you, since I held you in high regard as someone who was very well aquainted with Dish and their practices. I would hope that this forum would allow ALL views even when they disagree with you own. But you have proved me wrong. I now withdraw from this thread. It is all yours.


----------



## James Long

It isn't about my position at the forum ... read HDMe's posts.

E* has faults. One of them has been charging Bronze, Silver and Gold customers more for the same HD content that Platinum customers. In fact, Bronze and Silver customers get LESS HD for $20 than you got for the extra $15 (no National Geo). Plenty of things wrong with that. Yet your complaint is because the playing field is leveling?  (Except the DVR fees that AEP+HD customers still won't have to pay.)

You can say what you want about price increases. You have said it often. All of those posts still exist on this forum. No censorship. Now it seems that you want to silence anyone who shares the opposite viewpoint. That isn't going to happen either. Your viewpoint is accepted here but, respectfully, we get it. There is no need to post it again.

If you want a litany of E*'s failures I can give them --- but this isn't the appropriate thread.


----------



## killzone

James Long said:


> E* has faults. One of them has been charging Bronze, Silver and Gold customers more for the same HD content that Platinum customers. In fact, Bronze and Silver customers get LESS HD for $20 than you got for the extra $15 (no National Geo). Plenty of things wrong with that. Yet your complaint is because the playing field is leveling? .


Thats a silly argument. It's the same thing as saying people who subscribe to just HBO are paying more for it than people on the everything pak. It's called a package discount. If your paying for top tier package they give you a slight discount. Think of it as a volume discount. They still make more money off someone subscribing to Platinum than someone subscribing to Gold so knocking $5 off the cost might get some people to subscribe to platinum that might not have otherwise.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> It isn't about my position at the forum ... read HDMe's posts.


I think sometimes folks with tunnel vision not only cannot look outside their point of view but also tend to only see one "enemy" out to get them. I've seen several posts by more than one other person indicating they understand the pricing.

Note I've also said I don't like price increases, but I understand them... and I always encourage folks to vote with their wallets. In essence, since I don't complain and don't cancel I am effectively supporting price increases... but that just means it hasn't gotten bad enough for me to think about it.

I'm also well aware that I could post (like some folks do) the exact same message in every thread multiple times a day until my face turns blue and that effects no change in policies that I might disagree with either.

It's not like forum users voted for a price increase and Dish "listened" to our demands 

I've noted a couple of times, and notice no real reply to it... that none of the folks up in arms about the "$10 price increase" to the Everything pack were making similar daily posts all last year thanking Dish for the extra $5 discount. You'd think they would be similarly appreciative for the extra discount all that time, but apparently not.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

killzone said:


> Thats a silly argument. It's the same thing as saying people who subscribe to just HBO are paying more for it than people on the everything pak. It's called a package discount. If your paying for top tier package they give you a slight discount. Think of it as a volume discount. They still make more money off someone subscribing to Platinum than someone subscribing to Gold so knocking $5 off the cost might get some people to subscribe to platinum that might not have otherwise.


You've missed the point entirely.

The "Everything pack" is basically the Dish Gold (until Feb when everything changes again) + all the movie packages + a couple of extra channels. The discount given to "Everything" customers is already factored into them not paying the same price for all the Premiums individually.

A Dish Gold customer could subscribe to each Premium individually and pay $10-$15 per Premium... which would be like $40+ more cost vs the discount given to the "Everything" Platinum customer for buying those premiums. This is always the incentive for the "Everything" pack... you get discounted Premiums beyond what others pay. You also get a few extra channels (like NBATV) that normally would cost more to get... AND you get NO DVR FEEs if you have a DVR, which everyone else pays $5.98 per DVR.

So... all those discounts.... and to boot last year they threw in another $5 bonus just to be nice! And now, they are taking that one $5 bonus discount away again to make things like they were for the past years... and suddenly some folks are crying and whining about it.

I saw no "thank you Dish" threads all last year for that extra $5 bonus... in fact, you could argue instead of a bonus they just didn't raise the HD rates on Platinum like they did for other customers... Like this year where they are not raising AT60 or DishFamily rates like others... But next year, AT60 and DishFamily will go up more in line with where things are now... so I guess we get to hear those folks complain next December?

Maybe Dish should have just raised Platinum in the beginning instead of giving you folks the extra bonus discount all year... at least that way we wouldn't be hearing all the moaning about it now.


----------



## cable_killer

Why does everybody have to cry whenever there is an increase? Unlike other providers dish has the increase only once a year and has maintained it lower than anyone else. Stop whinning and realize the value you are getting!!!!!


----------



## jrb531

It's very hard to to feel sorry for people who complain about the $5 extra increase with the "almost everything" package when they are already paying far less than they should because "I" (and others like me) subsidize those zillion channels by being forced to subscribe to a huge number of unwanted channels.

Each year the price will rise faster than inflation. Each year we will B-tch and moan about it and each year the same people will ask for ala-cart and the channel counters will cry how cheap the zillion channels are per channel.

This will come to a head eventually. There are already far too many channels for the programming we have and once cable gets it's act together they will win for one reason...

They can provide Phone, Internet and Pay TV on one wire and provide bulk discounts. I hate cable and will never forget that they did not upgrade their systems until they were forced to and provided crappy service for big bucks.

Now if the phone companies get their act together they can also be in the picture but satellite is basically one-way and will always be such. If the FCC would have allowed the Dish-DTV merger then the cost savings (One bird can send down programming for one or a zillion people at the same cost) would have helped in the long run but the Cable bribes killed the merger and both Dish and DTV and slowly headed toward a burst. Think about all the wasted $$$ they were forced to do by having two identical sets of sats up in the sky - 1 for Dish and 1 for DTV and either set could serve the entire country. All that $$$ wasted yet the FCC does nothing about the real problem which is the programmers monopolistic practices and anti-competitive behavior.

Once Cable/Phone Companies upgrade to fiber how can satellite compete?

When I add up the cost of Phone Service, Internet and Pay TV I get:

1. Phone = $50
2. Pay TV = $75 (Dish)
3. Internet = $30

= $165 a month

Now if one wire can provide all of this on one bill for $99 for the first year and $120 after then how can you pass this up? Even after the first year you would be saving $45 a month or $540 a year!

Now is having a better DVR worth $540 a year? I love my 622 but $540 a year.

Hmmmm

BTW I'm just thinking out loud here and I welcome your comments. I keep getting these $99 a month ($120 after first year) deals from Comcast. I hate Comcast but I like my $$$ 

$99 is "very" tempting and I wonder if I would bite if I did not still have 12 months left on my 622 contract.

We will see if Dish's new price structure helps the situation but let me tell you this... I read a rumor that the new price structure is only for new subscribers... if this is the case it will be yet another nail in the coffin.

-JB


----------



## TNGTony

eatonjb said:


> so does anyone know what the price change is really going to be??


The price change is REALLY going to be what was posted in the first post on this humongo-thread. More details here http://ekb.dbstalk.com/rateincrease2007.htm

AEP by itself is going up $5
AT120/200 and AT180/250 are going up $3 each.
AT60/100 is not changing.

Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum packs are GONE...they will no longer exist. Finito. Sionara. No more.

The HD pack is going to cost $20 when added to any AT, DL or Great Wall package, $29 + $6 HD enabling fee without.

It's that simple.

That is the end of that though. What follows is a completely different though with no connection to the stuff above...

There are NEW packages being created called "DVR advantage Packs. They have a different price stucture and require long-term commitments. IOW, You get a discount for signing up for 18 months. If you cancel before the commitment is up for any reason whatw-so-ever, you pay a penalty.


----------



## TNGTony

Until Feb 1

HD Platinum $99.99 Price includes DVR Fees.

If purchased individually (if no Platinum Package)
AT180 $49.99 + HD Pack $20 + MegaMovie Pack $37.99 = $107.98 + $5.98 per DVR receiver

After February 1
AEP + HD Pack = $109.99 (Includes DVR Fees) - Platinum name disapears

If purchased individually
AT250 $52.99 + HD Pack $20 + MegaMovie Pack $40 = $112.99 + $5.98 per DVR


Take that for what its worth

See ya
Tony


----------



## minnow

jrb531 said:


> ...This will come to a head eventually. There are already far too many channels for the programming we have and once cable gets it's act together they will win for one reason...They can provide Phone, Internet and Pay TV on one wire and provide bulk discounts. I hate cable and will never forget that *they did not upgrade their systems until they were forced to and provided crappy service for big bucks*...-JB


Cable did that for one reason and one reason alone: There was no competition. There was no reason what so ever to improve PQ or offerings. It was either cable or rabbit ears. Satellite providers changed all that and forced cable to upgrade to be competitive. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Cable with their bundled services offer far more for far less. Satellite providers are now at a distinct disadvantage and really have just two options available: hook up with existing telco's to offer internet and phone(which both have done to limited success. And now that the telco's are doing their own thing with FIOS, that option is quickly coming to an end) and secondly, drop subscription prices well below cable. Satellite has yet to do that, but they must in the future if this business is to survive. Satellite is getting backed into a very tight corner by cable and now the emerging FIOS. If FIOS is able to penetrate the major markets and Satellite remains on it's current course, I do foresee the day when satellite will be reduced to a niche market only serving those in rural America who have no other choice. I do also see a merger of both D* and E* in the near term. There's already talk about sharing between the two. I believe that both D* and E* see the future and their limitations to expand the customer base over the long term. And it's not good.


----------



## cable_killer

jrb531 said:


> It's very hard to to feel sorry for people who complain about the $5 extra increase with the "almost everything" package when they are already paying far less than they should because "I" (and others like me) subsidize those zillion channels by being forced to subscribe to a huge number of unwanted channels.
> 
> Each year the price will rise faster than inflation. Each year we will B-tch and moan about it and each year the same people will ask for ala-cart and the channel counters will cry how cheap the zillion channels are per channel.
> 
> This will come to a head eventually. There are already far too many channels for the programming we have and once cable gets it's act together they will win for one reason...
> 
> They can provide Phone, Internet and Pay TV on one wire and provide bulk discounts. I hate cable and will never forget that they did not upgrade their systems until they were forced to and provided crappy service for big bucks.
> 
> Now if the phone companies get their act together they can also be in the picture but satellite is basically one-way and will always be such. If the FCC would have allowed the Dish-DTV merger then the cost savings (One bird can send down programming for one or a zillion people at the same cost) would have helped in the long run but the Cable bribes killed the merger and both Dish and DTV and slowly headed toward a burst. Think about all the wasted $$$ they were forced to do by having two identical sets of sats up in the sky - 1 for Dish and 1 for DTV and either set could serve the entire country. All that $$$ wasted yet the FCC does nothing about the real problem which is the programmers monopolistic practices and anti-competitive behavior.
> 
> Once Cable/Phone Companies upgrade to fiber how can satellite compete?
> 
> When I add up the cost of Phone Service, Internet and Pay TV I get:
> 
> 1. Phone = $50
> 2. Pay TV = $75 (Dish)
> 3. Internet = $30
> 
> = $165 a month
> 
> Now if one wire can provide all of this on one bill for $99 for the first year and $120 after then how can you pass this up? Even after the first year you would be saving $45 a month or $540 a year!
> 
> Now is having a better DVR worth $540 a year? I love my 622 but $540 a year.
> 
> Hmmmm
> 
> BTW I'm just thinking out loud here and I welcome your comments. I keep getting these $99 a month ($120 after first year) deals from Comcast. I hate Comcast but I like my $$$
> 
> $99 is "very" tempting and I wonder if I would bite if I did not still have 12 months left on my 622 contract.
> 
> We will see if Dish's new price structure helps the situation but let me tell you this... I read a rumor that the new price structure is only for new subscribers... if this is the case it will be yet another nail in the coffin.
> 
> -JB


Look into exactly what $99.00 gives you. that is only 1 digital box for 1 tv. if you want a so called cable-digital box, the price increases about 7-12 per box plus some cable companies rent remotes so another 1.50 per remote. does not add up to me.

Time Warner offered me the same thing. I asked them and challedge them to beat my price.

Dish= $50.00 with dvr 4room setup
RoadRunner Lite 19.99
AT&T?SBC 24.00
His reaction= PRICELESS

He himself was getting ready to jump to dish. But of course Time warner gives there employees free service so as not to be pirated.


----------



## minnow

cable_killer said:


> Look into exactly what $99.00 gives you. that is only 1 digital box for 1 tv. if you want a so called cable-digital box, the price increases about 7-12 per box plus some cable companies rent remotes so another 1.50 per remote. does not add up to me...


For me, it did add up - to significant monthly savings over what I was paying for three separate providers. And not only that, but I went from AT60 with Dish to almost everything TW has including two premiums and the HD package. The first year, I'm saving at least $30 a month, the second year $15 and month and the third year I'll cut out the two premiums(which I never had with Dish to begin with and won't miss) and will pay the same as what I was paying before switching to TW this past November with a heck of a lot more channels that the AT60 package. And the service with TW includes two HD-DVR's and remotes, Roadrunner and phone with included long distance.
By the time year 3 comes along, I'll look at this all again in greater detail and make a decesion as to what I'll do. But for the next two years, it's deal that one would be foolish to pass up.


----------



## khearrean

TNGTony said:


> Until Feb 1
> 
> HD Platinum $99.99 Price includes DVR Fees.
> 
> If purchased individually (if no Platinum Package)
> AT180 $49.99 + HD Pack $20 + MegaMovie Pack $37.99 = $107.98 + $5.98 per DVR receiver
> 
> After February 1
> AEP + HD Pack = $109.99 (Includes DVR Fees) - Platinum name disapears
> 
> If purchased individually
> AT250 $52.99 + HD Pack $20 + MegaMovie Pack $40 = $112.99 + $5.98 per DVR
> 
> Take that for what its worth
> 
> See ya
> Tony


I'm hoping I'm not asking anyone to repeat themselves, but I've not found the answer to this question. Based upon what I've read here, effective 2/1 the AEP + HD Pack is supposed to be $109.99 which includes a DVR fee. What if you *don't* have a DVR like myself? FYI: I have the ViP211..
And secondly, right now I have the (Dish Platinum + locals) & pay $104.99. I called a Dish CSR yesterday and asked what my actual price increase would be after 2/1 & she said in my case I would see a $5.00 increase (as long as I kept my programming as is). If that's true, that would mean that effective 2/1/07, the AEP + HD Pack + LiL's would be $109.99 (if you don't have a DVR). If you do have a DVR (which could only be a 622), there would be add'l $'s added to that (whatever the DVR fee is), I guess. So now after reading many of the posts here, I am somewhat confused..Was I told wrong by the CSR or am I just mis-reading some of the posts?

Ken


----------



## jrb531

The Cable/FIOS package includes unlimted local/long distance with all the features included. It also includes faster internet.

What would your cost be for the same type of service?

Yes it will be about the same price if you strip down your DSL and phone service but if you do a like-like compare.... Cable/FIOS is "much" cheaper.

-JB


----------



## Greg Bimson

jrb531 said:


> Yes it will be about the same price if you strip down your DSL and phone service but if you do a like-like compare.... Cable/FIOS is "much" cheaper.


Don't want to belabor this point, but...

For someone against the bundling of channels, you certainly seem very keen on the bundling of TV, internet and video.


----------



## jrb531

Greg Bimson said:


> Don't want to belabor this point, but...
> 
> For someone against the bundling of channels, you certainly seem very keen on the bundling of TV, internet and video.


I am for freedom of choice. If I already have all three packages then saving $$$ makes sense.

Now if you want to compare the way Pay TV is now I would suggest this:

I have the option to select less phone service
I have the option to select less internet service

These options (at least with phone service) only came after a long fight in which the evil government had to step in and tell the phone companies that they had to offer unbundled services. At first they did so but made them artificially expensive so the government had to step in and tell them to price them within reason.

IMHO the internet DSL only got cheap so they could tap into the AOL's of the world and they knew that to get people to switch they had to offer a price that was either cheaper or close to the AOL price which they have.

As long as "I" have the option of either taking a bundled service or not then it is ok by me.

With Pay TV I have no choice and will continue to fight for such. Meanwhile I take the lowest package that is the best value for the channels I watch.

Currently this is Direct TV but I am under contract with Dish for another year so I stay. It just so happens that DTV has "all" the channels I want at their lowest price while Dish makes me subscribe to a more expensive package.

This is just dumb luck however as I do not think DTV is any better.

I have always been a huge supporter of offering discounts for those who subscribe to more but not at the price of forcing others to subsidize these packages.

"Bulk" discounts are great!

So if Cable/FIOS can give me a "bulk" discount for a service I already want then great! If they did not offer unbundled service then this is bad.

-JB


----------



## FTA Michael

For all of you who persist in restaurant analogies, I couldn't resist taking this photo at a concession stand in the Sands Expo Center.


----------



## TNGTony

khearrean said:


> I'm hoping I'm not asking anyone to repeat themselves, but I've not found the answer to this question. Based upon what I've read here, effective 2/1 the AEP + HD Pack is supposed to be $109.99 which includes a DVR fee. What if you *don't* have a DVR like myself? FYI: I have the ViP211..


So?  Let me change the wording. Those who subscribe to AEP pay (X). Those with DVRs have their DVR fees waived.



> And secondly, right now I have the (Dish Platinum + locals) & pay $104.99. I called a Dish CSR yesterday and asked what my actual price increase would be after 2/1 & she said in my case I would see a $5.00 increase (as long as I kept my programming as is). If that's true, that would mean that effective 2/1/07, the AEP + HD Pack + LiL's would be $109.99 (if you don't have a DVR).


No... AEP is going up $5 to 89.99 WITHOUT locals, $94.99 with. This is Gospel. That is fact. That is what is really happening. 
HD pack is $20 added to any AT/AEP/DL/Great Wall package. That is Gospel, fact, what is happening as of 2/1/07. 
Total for AEP (89.99)+Locals(5.00)+HD Pakc ($20) is $114.99. Live with it. That is the price!

Now, if there is a "grandfathering" period for current "Platinum" subscribers that is a different story! This is the first I hear of this, but it is very possible that those who ALREADY have HD Platinum will only see a $5 inclrease in their bill. This is essentially what is happening with Dish Latino Everything. The package is going away, but those already with the package can keep it with a $5 price hike. Interesting. But I do not trust ANY CSR! 



> If you do have a DVR (which could only be a 622), there would be add'l $'s added to that (whatever the DVR fee is), I guess. So now after reading many of the posts here, I am somewhat confused..Was I told wrong by the CSR or am I just mis-reading some of the posts?


There is a $5.98 DVR fee for each DVR (HD or not) on your account *UNLESS* you have the "Everything" (AEP/ DL Everything/ HD Platinum/DL Platinum) package.

See ya
Tony


----------



## khearrean

Sorry, I was only asking for clarification! (I wasn't complaining). I thought I had simply mis-interpreted what I had read. I guess I should know by now not to believe the CSR's...

Ken


----------



## CABill

TNGTony said:


> Now, if there is a "grandfathering" period for current "Platinum" subscribers that is a different story! This is the first I hear of this, but it is very possible that those who ALREADY have HD Platinum will only see a $5 inclrease in their bill. This is essentially what is happening with Dish Latino Everything. The package is going away, but those already with the package can keep it with a $5 price hike. Interesting. But I do not trust ANY CSR!


It certainly wouldn't surprise me if current Platinum users did continue to only incur the $5 AEP. That isn't based on anything substantive, but on what DISH has done historically. AT60+ users can't get it w/o locals now, but those that had it w/o locals can still get it for $5 less. Even with the DNS termination, people that got Locals and Supers for $8.99 (but didn't have a distant) keep that deal. Some DishHD packages were canceled (HD Bronze Latino, ...), but I thought people that had it continued to see that line item on their bill and it was only new subs that had to "get it in pieces". Some people still sub to DISHPix! I haven't thought much about it, but I don't recall changes where existing subs weren't grandfathered to some extent. Sometimes new subs were even shielded from the basic price increases for the commit term. We'll know more on 2-Feb?


----------



## James Long

FTA Michael said:


>


So Charlie likes a la carte but the soup and potato place doesn't?


----------



## FTA Michael

And the soup and potato place wants cash, while Charlie would prefer to have your credit card.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

James Long said:


> It isn't about my position at the forum ... read HDMe's posts.
> 
> You can say what you want about price increases. You have said it often. All of those posts still exist on this forum. No censorship. Now it seems that you want to silence anyone who shares the opposite viewpoint. That isn't going to happen either. Your viewpoint is accepted here but, respectfully, we get it. There is no need to post it again.
> 
> I think you are projecting here James. I have Never tried to silence anyone about their beliefs about Dish. I said that about you if you look at my posts. IF you will allow people to posts without belittling every point they make , line by line, it would go farther to prove you are for free press and no censorship. But I have received you message as you have said it enough. I will no longer say anything about the increase THIS YEAR. I can't promise about next year though, since we all know another one is due next year. That will be the 7th increase by next February 2008.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Umm... a bit of clarification.

Censorship would be removing posts entirely or deleting parts of them or not allowing others with differing points of view to reply.

A free press means you are free to post, others are free to disagree and post back. Don't post if you don't want/expect/welcome a reply in a free press scenario!

Broken record verbatim posts "spamming" are just annoying. If you choose to exercise your free speech by spamming the exact same text over and over and not actually engaging in conversation... that's fine too, but don't expect reasonable responses to unreasonable messages.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> I do foresee the day when satellite will be reduced to a niche market only serving those in rural America who have no other choice.


I fully agree

The bundling of TV, Phone and Broadband is major advantage for FTTP providers and cablecos. I figured it out, everything from TW versus Dish/Verizon POTS/Verizon DSL would come out about $10 cheaper then what I can get from TW with comparable offerings. I get less HD with TW, but faster internet. Why would I want to downgrade myself to Verizon's *D*ead *S*low *L*ine at 3Mb when I can get 15Mb down/1Mb up from Road Runner. No upfront costs at all with TW and no contract.

Under the new pricing, price would be ~$213 Dish/Verizon Landline/Verizon DSL v ~$223 All In One Premium w/RR Premium. It would be under $200, but to upgrade to Premium internet is $25 more, I will not settle for 10Mb Road Runner, I need 15Mb. With cable that includes all rental, DVR and franchise fees. Tax on Digital Phone is not added in though, since I have no idea what that would come to.

I'm wondering when Fios becomes a major player is Verizon will attempt to bundle wireless in, being two separate companies I doubt it but you never know. Time Warner bundles wireless with Sprint, but being a 3 year Nextel subscriber under contract I doubt I'd be eligible for that. Ultimately in a fantasy world, I'd like one bill from Time Warner. Digital Cable, Digital Phone, Broadband, Home Security, Wireless from Nextel, best and most of each service $330 final.

Now all I need is for TW to get digital phone service to my area and I'll be all wired up for the future.


----------



## linuxworks

jrb531 said:


> If you have a local Blockbuster you would be nuts to subscribe to any form of movie channel in any form IMHO.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Why would I want to pay all this extra $$$ to watch older new movies when I can pay about the same and see just released stuff?


one thing comes to mind: all the ads in the rented dvds! and the 'you must watch' feature in the dvd players. the 'hand' that comes out saying 'NO!' you can't FF past this part.

at least with any kind of cable or sat program, I CAN FF thru it.

it may be a small point but its not a totally null one. I like the dvd video quality but I HATE the ads and the forced-watch parts. drives me up the wall! I reject buying dvd's almost entirely because of this.


----------



## jrb531

linuxworks said:


> one thing comes to mind: all the ads in the rented dvds! and the 'you must watch' feature in the dvd players. the 'hand' that comes out saying 'NO!' you can't FF past this part.
> 
> at least with any kind of cable or sat program, I CAN FF thru it.
> 
> it may be a small point but its not a totally null one. I like the dvd video quality but I HATE the ads and the forced-watch parts. drives me up the wall! I reject buying dvd's almost entirely because of this.


Dunno about you but I have no problem FF'ing through rented DVD's. Granted they locked out the menu button and the "skip" button but hitting the FF button a few times skips through them in a few seconds.

I don't like them either but that extra 30 seconds max time it takes to start the movie is a small price to pay to see the new stuff for about a buck a movie (more or less depending on how fast you watch them)

Now if I had to sit there for 5 mins watching lame commercials or coming attractions then I would be pissed... pissed enough to pay the same or more to watch older movies... not sure 

-JB


----------



## Steve Mehs

I just use DVD Shrink to remove that crap, along with the FBI waring


----------



## INHUMANITY

Steve Mehs said:


> I just use DVD Shrink to remove that crap, along with the FBI waring


My two favorites are AnyDVD and good old DVD Shrink.

AnyDVD is great because it removes all copy protection schemes on the fly.

When you open up 'Shrink the "Encryption Type" says "nothing." Very cool!

AnyDVD also gives you the option to have the movie start playing as soon as the disc is inserted or go to the main menu.


----------



## killzone

There is one advantage to having movie channels. You get to find and watch movies you might not have known about or thought about seeing.

If you know exactly what you want to watch, then Blockbuster is better.


----------



## cdoyle

killzone said:


> There is one advantage to having movie channels. You get to find and watch movies you might not have known about or thought about seeing.
> 
> If you know exactly what you want to watch, then Blockbuster is better.


Actually since singing up with netflix, I'm finding way more movies then I ever did with any of the movie channels.

just browsing through the library, I've added at least 20 movies that I totally forgot about since they were released. Plus the more movies you rate, the more recommendations based off your ratings appear.


----------



## killzone

cdoyle said:


> Actually since singing up with netflix, I'm finding way more movies then I ever did with any of the movie channels.
> 
> just browsing through the library, I've added at least 20 movies that I totally forgot about since they were released. Plus the more movies you rate, the more recommendations based off your ratings appear.


I haven't tried it yet, so I didn't know they give you suggestions and such. This is looking better and better.

It's looking like the movie packs are losing their value.


----------



## killzone

Is there any more information on the DVR Advantage packages? Are these going to be available to existing customers? I thought I saw a post somewhere saying it was only for new customers.

What about if you have 2 DVRS? Would the DVR fees still be included? 

Would it have any impact on grandfathered items, like the $8.99 local+superstation or the $5 service contract that includes all equipment and service with no other service fees?


----------



## Jim5506

DVR Advantage is for new and existing customers.


----------



## jrb531

killzone said:


> I haven't tried it yet, so I didn't know they give you suggestions and such. This is looking better and better.
> 
> It's looking like the movie packs are losing their value.


Not sayig anything bad about Netflix cause it a real good value but when I compared the two you get a much better value with Blockbuster "if" you have one local.

You see they now give you the option of either mailing back your returns or if you want to drop off the return at any local store you can trade it for any movie in the store on the spot!

You also get one free movie coupon each month that is also good for video game rentrals.

As I said... I have nothing bad to say about Netflix but the Blockbuster exchange is so great that I thought I would mention it.

-JB


----------



## jonsnow

As of today, cable tv is a luxury, for those with 62" flat screen tvs, period. Pre-Bill Clinton and the year 1996 it was affordable for all. Now I'd rather go to the library system and put a hold on a movie and pay 50 cents for it 9 months latter. HBO and At120 is nice if you can afford it, but I can't. It's my fault not dish, I'm not entitled to cheap cable tv.


----------



## linuxworks

Steve Mehs said:


> I just use DVD Shrink to remove that crap, along with the FBI waring


I'm currently going further than that.

I'm now taking the .vob files and running vob2mpg to create a DRM FREE mpg file. its "just a file" - no indexing or any other fluff - but all I really care about is the full movie (or concert) from start to finish. 'features' usually don't interest me.

and when I save the single .mpg file to disk, that's it - no 'iso emulation' nonsense or any of that.

sigh. I wish things weren't so wrapped up on policy and politics. its JUST a movie and should be JUST a single file. songs are single files. life should be simple, not complex.

and hd-dvd and bluray is even MORE of a nightmare. I have zero desire to even go there for those nutty formats..


----------



## Jim5506

jrb531 said:


> Not sayig anything bad about Netflix cause it a real good value but when I compared the two you get a much better value with Blockbuster "if" you have one local.
> 
> You see they now give you the option of either mailing back your returns or if you want to drop off the return at any local store you can trade it for any movie in the store on the spot!
> 
> You also get one free movie coupon each month that is also good for video game rentrals.
> 
> As I said... I have nothing bad to say about Netflix but the Blockbuster exchange is so great that I thought I would mention it.
> 
> -JB


Doesn't the fine print on the BlockBuster commercial indicate that DVD's picked up locally are not included in your subscription to the mail in plan and you will be charged at the regular rental rate?


----------



## jrb531

Jim5506 said:


> Doesn't the fine print on the BlockBuster commercial indicate that DVD's picked up locally are not included in your subscription to the mail in plan and you will be charged at the regular rental rate?


I don't know anything about the commercial but I have been using this from the start. The only differnece is when you "trade" in a return for a new movie locally you have to return it to that store and you will pay overdue charges if you return the movie late.

How it works:

1. You pick a zillion movies online for them to send to you
2. They send you 3 movies off that list with no time limit for returns
3. When you are done watching them you have the option of either dropping the movies in the mail via pre-paid envelope "or" you may elect to bring the envelope to your local Blockbuster and trade each envelope for any movie in the store.
4. Movies traded in at the local Blockbuster are inmmediate marked as returned and they send you move movies in the mail "while" you still have the swaped movies you got locally!

As I said before... you pay nothing for the swaped movies but you do have to return those to the store as well as the usual time limit the store has for those movies.

Why is Blockbuster doing this? I'm only guessing that they save the postage because they can return movies in bulk instead of one at a time. The stores collect them in mass and return them at a bulk rate.

If you add the free coupon for either a movie or now a video game rental each month I think Netflix will have a hard time competing with Blockbuster for those who have local Blockbuster stores.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

http://www.blockbuster.com/signup/rp/howItWorks



> Only BLOCKBUSTER Total Access™ gives the convenience of renting movies online and the choice of how you return them: by mail or bringing them to a participating BLOCKBUSTER store, where you can exchange them for new movies on the spot*.





> * Separate in-store membership required for in-store rentals. In-store movie rentals are subject to store rental terms and conditions, including due dates and charges which may apply to rentals not returned by the due date. See store for complete in-store rental terms and conditions. Free in-store rentals must be returned to the store where they were originally rented. See your receipt for store location and due dates.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

jrb531 said:


> I don't know anything about the commercial but I have been using this from the start. The only differnece is when you "trade" in a return for a new movie locally you have to return it to that store and you will pay overdue charges if you return the movie late.
> 
> How it works:
> 
> 1. You pick a zillion movies online for them to send to you
> 2. They send you 3 movies off that list with no time limit for returns
> 3. When you are done watching them you have the option of either dropping the movies in the mail via pre-paid envelope "or" you may elect to bring the envelope to your local Blockbuster and trade each envelope for any movie in the store.
> 4. Movies traded in at the local Blockbuster are inmmediate marked as returned and they send you move movies in the mail "while" you still have the swaped movies you got locally!
> 
> As I said before... you pay nothing for the swaped movies but you do have to return those to the store as well as the usual time limit the store has for those movies.
> 
> Why is Blockbuster doing this? I'm only guessing that they save the postage because they can return movies in bulk instead of one at a time. The stores collect them in mass and return them at a bulk rate.
> 
> If you add the free coupon for either a movie or now a video game rental each month I think Netflix will have a hard time competing with Blockbuster for those who have local Blockbuster stores.
> 
> -JB


 I use this service now instead of paying for the premium channels from Dish . It works very well. I encourage others to try it as well.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jonsnow said:


> As of today, cable tv is a luxury, for those with 62" flat screen tvs, period. Pre-Bill Clinton and the year 1996 it was affordable for all. Now I'd rather go to the library system and put a hold on a movie and pay 50 cents for it 9 months latter. HBO and At120 is nice if you can afford it, but I can't. It's my fault not dish, I'm not entitled to cheap cable tv.


Cable TV has always been a luxury... and for the record, no one is "entitled" to cable TV be it cheap or expensive. Our US Constitution is meant to guarantee us the "pursuit of happiness" but does not actually guarantee us happiness!

If there is cable TV and you can pay for it, then you have the right to pay for and receive it... but you are not guaranteed cable TV nor is it guaranteed to be affordable.

I am not similarly "entitled" to a limousine w/ driver to carry me around everywhere I go!


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> Cable TV has always been a luxury... and for the record, no one is "entitled" to cable TV be it cheap or expensive. Our US Constitution is meant to guarantee us the "pursuit of happiness" but does not actually guarantee us happiness!
> 
> If there is cable TV and you can pay for it, then you have the right to pay for and receive it... but you are not guaranteed cable TV nor is it guaranteed to be affordable.
> 
> I am not similarly "entitled" to a limousine w/ driver to carry me around everywhere I go!


So I guess phone service, heat, electric and other items not in the US constitution should also not be regulated?

At what point does something "stop" being a luxury and start becoming a required necessity?

While I can understand to a lessor extent that heat and electricity have passed toward the realm of luxury to required... not as if most of us can go chop down our local trees for firewood LOL but when did a telephone become required?

If it's required then why? If it's not required then why did the government step in and break up their monopolistic practices?

I seem to remember them breaking up the railroad tycoons also along with investigating Microsoft and any other company or companies that attempt to circumvent competition.

I fail to see how these Pay TV programmers get a free ride. Must be some bribes... errr lobbyists LOL.

No Pay TV is not required. In fact maybe we would be much better off without mindlessly looking at a box for hours on end but I still have yet to have anyone explain why the Pay TV industry should be exempt from oversight when so many other businesses could never get away with even a portion of the crap that is happening today.

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jrb531 said:


> So I guess phone service, heat, electric and other items not in the US constitution should also not be regulated?


Be careful mixing "regulated" with "required/necessity"... Just because something is a necessity for life doesn't mean it is or should be regulated. We need oxygen, for instance, but there is no government regulation on the air we breathe (except as it pertains to noxious emissions from cars, manufacturing plants, etc.)...

The general public often wants the government to "run" things... which is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing. De-regulation of the power companies in California, for instance, seems to have had a negative effect so it can be argued government controls over some things can be good.



jrb531 said:


> At what point does something "stop" being a luxury and start becoming a required necessity?


A lot of it depends upon where you are in your life. A homeless man would most likely not consider a phone to be a requirement. He would consider food, water, and shelter to be requirements no doubt... but phone, TV, internet, and even "fancy clothes" would be luxuries most homeless people would gladly pass up for the basic necessities.

On the other hand... those of us more fortunate in life might get used to our electricity and our heat/cool air conditioners, our fancy phones, TV, and so forth and perhaps consider them hard to live without... but are they really?

I know when the power goes out, a rarity admittedly... I don't freak out like some folks. There was an ice storm in NC a few years ago where a lot of areas were without power for more than a week. Now, heat was a problem especially with babies and the elderly or sick who had a very hard time with the cold temperatures at night. I understand that... but a LOT of people were calling in and not going to work just because their power was out... not because they needed to be home, but because they felt "lost" without power. People couldn't eat, in some cases, because they couldn't go to their favorite fast-food place that had no power! It was insane to see how many folks were unnecessarily "crippled" by lack of power as compared to folks who actually were in need of assistance during that week.



jrb531 said:


> While I can understand to a lessor extent that heat and electricity have passed toward the realm of luxury to required... not as if most of us can go chop down our local trees for firewood LOL but when did a telephone become required?


I'm not sure *I* consider a phone a requirement or something the government should guarantee me... but given the way of life, and the relatively low cost of ownership to have a phone... I wouldn't have a problem if it were something that everyone had. Of course today not everyone has a phone. Some folks can't pay the bill and afford it, so not everyone has one. There are different phone plans and land-line vs cellular, but there are lots of folks without a phone because they cannot afford to have one.

Obviously the government (and the general populace) has not stepped in to mandate everyone has a phone... or everyone would have a phone!  So, even with some FCC regulation on phone companies, there is no guarantee of phone to you or I except as long as we can pay our bill.



jrb531 said:


> If it's required then why? If it's not required then why did the government step in and break up their monopolistic practices?


Again, don't confuse things... The government steps in when they believe the market is being unfairly manipulated. This can be from the old anti-trust legislation or monopolies or the price-gouging that occurs after natura disasters. When the government comes down on a price-gouger after the hurricane, it doesn't mean the government is suddenly regulating and guaranteeing fence-mending services to everyone! It just means they are trying to weed out some of the folks who are unfairly manipulating the system.


----------



## FTA Michael

jrb531 said:


> So I guess phone service, heat, electric and other items not in the US constitution should also not be regulated?
> 
> At what point does something "stop" being a luxury and start becoming a required necessity?


That's a real question. Phone service, for example, began as a real luxury, but now it's considered such a necessity that some states have provisions for low-cost "lifeline" accounts.

But the real reason why phone service, heat and electric are typically regulated is that they are typically _utilities_. The concept of utilities goes back to Edison, who saw the expense and waste of building competing electric grids. Edison came up with the idea of locking in a reduced (but more certain) profit in exchange for governmental approval of Edison's company being the only game in town.

When cable TV first arrived, its similarly large infrastructure led some to believe that it should be regulated as a utility, but instead, we got the local franchise agreement model. Some early franchise agreements were exclusive, but more often the expense of duplicating the existing grid was sufficient to prevent meaningful competition.

Now we have satellite TV :righton: which is regulated federally, competing with cable, which has a mixture of local and federal regulations.

But even though a huge majority of US households subscribes to multichannel TV, few consider it to be a true necessity, and even fewer call for it to be regulated as a utility.


----------



## jrb531

First off thanks for the interesting and educational responses with some great points that I would like to add to.

While I do not prescribe to this theory there are some who feel that a "true" open market is one in which supply and demand dictate the prices of things and as such there is nothing wrong with prices rises dramatically short term.

The thing is "who" decides what is too much or when the line has been crossed between profit taking and predatory profits?

Surely when the hurricane hit the price of gas rose instantly while the gas stations were still selling the "cheap" gas already in their tanks. When the price drops they do not "instantly" drop the price accordingly but wait until the tank is refilled. This is nothing new and has been happening for years and each time people cry foul and there are investigations and nothing becomes of it.

Now another interesting point is the "logic" for not having duplicate distribution networks.

Why have two sets of power grids for different power companies?
Why have two sets of water pipes for different water companies?
Why have two sets of gas pipes for different companies?

or I might add...

Why have two sets of satalites for different companies?
Why have two sets of cables for cable companies?

Do people realize how much cheaper our bills "could" be if there was only one satalite company? One set of birds will serve 1 or 1 zillion people for the same cost! Right now we have two sets of satalites up in space sitting next to each other (figuratively) broadcasting the same signals in duplicate. This makes ZERO sence and is utterly silly!

All that wasted bandwidth because congress is afraid that those in the boonies who cannot get cable will somehow get charged more by the satalite company because they have no cable compentition over those in the cities who do have competition! You know how stupid this concept is and the FCC bought it and blocked the DTV-Dish merger.

More like the Cable industry feared (as well they should) that one satalite company would be able to undercut them so they bribed... errr donated huge sums of $$$ to "educate" the FCC and congress how one Satalite company would kill competition for the farmers 

Kind of funny how this has come full circle and now the cable companies with bundling of phone and internet now have the upper hand.... want to bet that eventually the merger will be allowed but only when cable has the firm upper hand.

I find it shocking how little our representatives actually represent the voters and instead most are nothing but shills for big business and the donations (bribes).

Some may say that these are not bribes but as I see it:



> bribe (brb) n.
> 1. Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.
> 2. Something serving to influence or persuade.


What are donations? Seems to me they are defined above. You do not vote the way those who donate to you and you get no more $$$.

So yes I feel very strongly that the cable industry bribed the government into killing the merger which made sense. I also find it very interesting that they seem to care very little about the programmers monopolistic practices but only after the bribes started pouring in and suddenly everyone who thought something needed to be done backed off and changed their mind.

Amazing!

How many people really have two sets of cable coming down their streets with two distict cable companies in competiton? If the answer is very little then why was it so important to have two satalite companies in direct competition?

Cable, FIOS, Satalite are nothing but "distribution" methods for Pay TV and nothing more. So until we have multiple sets of cable running down "everyones" street, untill we have multiple sets of phone wires running does "everyones" street....

well until that point... well why do we "need" two sets of expensive birds up in the sky duplicating the very same programming?

-JB


----------



## Jim5506

You'd be surprised how many times such overlaps actually DO occur. We have 2 power companies each with seperate distribution grids, 3 cable companies each with their own distribution systems (they do not all cover all of the city, but they DO overlap.

Dish and Direct's receivers and dishes are SO different that one or the other or both would have to be entirely replaced.


----------



## eatonjb

Jim5506 said:


> You'd be surprised how many times such overlaps actually DO occur. We have 2 power companies each with seperate distribution grids, 3 cable companies each with their own distribution systems (they do not all cover all of the city, but they DO overlap.
> 
> Dish and Direct's receivers and dishes are SO different that one or the other or both would have to be entirely replaced.


both would have to replaced, and it would take some time. also a merge would take years anyways, and they would have to set cut off dates when new system has to be in place at Dish/Direct's expence, (witch would come back to us in the long run) and if there was only one, god only knows what the price would be, since they wont have any other sat company to compeate with!

I dont know if it will happen.. we will see


----------



## jrb531

eatonjb said:


> both would have to replaced, and it would take some time. also a merge would take years anyways, and they would have to set cut off dates when new system has to be in place at Dish/Direct's expence, (witch would come back to us in the long run) and if there was only one, god only knows what the price would be, since they wont have any other sat company to compeate with!
> 
> I dont know if it will happen.. we will see


What would one vs two Satalite companies have to do price-wise matter when the real competition is cable?

When the merger was proposed it was pre-HD for the most part and they were still rolling out locals. The FCC canned the merger because those areas without cable would have zero competition.

The silly fact (that Dish brought up and they ignored) is that the price is fixed for "all" customers and the fact that most people "do" have cable competition would mean that the price would remain competative.

The FCC (if you beleive it) thought that one Dish company would mean the price would go up for those without competition.

It was a total and utter farce - yes it would have been rolled out over the years but in the past year the 622 could have been rolled out for "all" customers and with the huge $$$ saved along with the extra bandwidth we would have plenty of room for HD as well as the price being kept in check.

Right now, instead of cable getting ready for the kill with cheaper bundled service, Dish would be viable long term because it would have been cheaper to provide Pay TV with cable being better if you wanted to get phone-internet from them...

Example:

Dish+3rd party internet+3rd party Phone = about same price as bundled cable PayTV-Phone-Internet

Now in the coming years it will be the satalite companies that struggle to convince people why they should pay more for their Pay TV than you can get with a bundled deal from cable.

Which is why, in the long run, they will allow the merger. They help them up until cable got their act together.

If their original reasons to deny the merger were valid it will remain valid and they will "never" be allowed to merge. If they pull up some ok in the future it will yet again prove that $$$ talks and the error was Satalite not pumping their own bribe $$$ in the bougth and paid for politicians who sell their votes to the highest bidder yet we elect these same hacks over and over.

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jrb531 said:


> The thing is "who" decides what is too much or when the line has been crossed between profit taking and predatory profits?


Often it is a matter of perspective. If you were running a company, and you could buy components to make a cool gadget that everyone wanted and you were the only one who could make them... then you would likely sell for whatever the market would bear.

What if you could buy and assemble for $5, but you found that you could sell them rather quickly at $25 per? Is that gouging or good business? What if you found you could raise the price to $35 and they still moved quickly?

Often "greed" is a matter of perspective rather than being a blatantly obvious thing.

Basic economics makes use of price in controlling supply/demand. If you have a lot of demand and limited supply, then you control things by raising the price until things still sell briskly but not so fast that you cannot keep up. As a control mechanism, pricing is as much about profit as it is about keeping the market "balanced"... An item priced too cheaply will sell faster/more often than it should until the price reaches a proper level.

Similarly, you find out when you are priced too high for the market when your demand begins to drop and you find profitability taking a hit.

Using gasoline as an example... there are some folks who would argue gasoline is obviously not too expensive yet because we have not changed our driving habits. Some folks think the only way to effect that change would be to raise the price even more. In the short term that would also mean big profits for the oil companies! But in the long-term it would serve to shift market interest away from fossil fuels.. so it can be a tricky thing to guage whether even greed is a bad thing if it effects positive change down the road.

People having to pay too much for the gasoline could lead to less driving, which means less air polution... and could also lead to alternative sources of fuel that are cheaper or more efficient or better for the environment... and while an oil company may be raking it in today, 20 years from now it could be a has-been industry if they are unable to adapt. History is littered with "big companies" that couldn't change with the times and market shifts and even their days of big profit didn't help in the end.



jrb531 said:


> Now another interesting point is the "logic" for not having duplicate distribution networks.
> 
> Why have two sets of power grids for different power companies?
> Why have two sets of water pipes for different water companies?
> Why have two sets of gas pipes for different companies?


This is a tougher thing... when you consider that in many areas one company put a lot of money into infrastructure of pipes and power grids... so why should another company get to piggy-back along without having to do the same? Yes, it is inefficient... but how many of us would want our co-worker to reap all the reward and recognition for tagging along at the end of the day after we put in the blood and sweat to get the bulk of the project done?

Inefficient yes... but another power company isn't entitled to free or even cheap use of a power grid that some other company spent years and millions of dollars building.


----------



## James Long

HDMe said:


> Inefficient yes... but another power company isn't entitled to free or even cheap use of a power grid that some other company spent years and millions of dollars building.


Not free, but cheap. Generally speaking power companys sell power to each other across the grid ... so they all are paying for it's use in one way or another.

Did you know that you can generate power at your home or business and sell it to the power company? I've seen where people put up their own solar arrays or windmills then run two meters, one where they are buying and one where they are selling to the power company. And at least in some areas (I don't want to say all) the power company is REQUIRED to buy back power from these small systems.

Anyway, off on another related off topic - the phone company that invested in stringing wires to every home over the past 100+ years has been forced to sell their access at regulated "cheap" rates to their competitors. It certainly isn't outside of the governments whims to force an existing provider to give something they have invested a lot in to their competition for cheap.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> Not free, but cheap. Generally speaking power companys sell power to each other across the grid ... so they all are paying for it's use in one way or another.
> 
> Did you know that you can generate power at your home or business and sell it to the power company? I've seen where people put up their own solar arrays or windmills then run two meters, one where they are buying and one where they are selling to the power company. And at least in some areas (I don't want to say all) the power company is REQUIRED to buy back power from these small systems.


Yeah... I was watching a program not too long ago about a family who had a "green" house, with all kinds of nifty bells & whistles for recycling rainwater and solar panels and stuff for electricity... and they pointed out that their power meter ran backwards some months as they were generating more power than they used and it was going back to the power company and they got credit for it.

In my neighborhood, believe it or not, the HOA forbids solar panels! I thought that was a particularly odd thing to forbid since it could be a good thing seems to me.



James Long said:


> Anyway, off on another related off topic - the phone company that invested in stringing wires to every home over the past 100+ years has been forced to sell their access at regulated "cheap" rates to their competitors. It certainly isn't outside of the governments whims to force an existing provider to give something they have invested a lot in to their competition for cheap.


I haven't decided how I feel about that either. On the one hand, more competition in the phone market hopefully improves things for everyone... but on the other, is it even fair for the government to force them to sell their lines? I suppose if the government subsidized part of the construction it's a different discussion.. . but if a private phone company put everything up, then it seems like they should have a right not to sell.

Other companies should be free to run their own lines of course.

In a perfect world, multiple companies could join forces to help speed up fiber-optic installations with the agreement that it would be jointly owned or something by the companies and it could be used to carry whatever phone/TV service a customer wanted.


----------



## jrb531

James Long said:


> Not free, but cheap. Generally speaking power companys sell power to each other across the grid ... so they all are paying for it's use in one way or another.
> 
> Did you know that you can generate power at your home or business and sell it to the power company? I've seen where people put up their own solar arrays or windmills then run two meters, one where they are buying and one where they are selling to the power company. And at least in some areas (I don't want to say all) the power company is REQUIRED to buy back power from these small systems.
> 
> Anyway, off on another related off topic - the phone company that invested in stringing wires to every home over the past 100+ years has been forced to sell their access at regulated "cheap" rates to their competitors. It certainly isn't outside of the governments whims to force an existing provider to give something they have invested a lot in to their competition for cheap.


And the only reason you can do this is because the government forced them to. The power company would never, on their own, allow any of this.

I'm not a fan of government intervention but they do have to step in when forces are at play that limit or remove competition.

-JB


----------



## jrb531

HDMe said:


> Yeah... I was watching a program not too long ago about a family who had a "green" house, with all kinds of nifty bells & whistles for recycling rainwater and solar panels and stuff for electricity... and they pointed out that their power meter ran backwards some months as they were generating more power than they used and it was going back to the power company and they got credit for it.
> 
> In my neighborhood, believe it or not, the HOA forbids solar panels! I thought that was a particularly odd thing to forbid since it could be a good thing seems to me.
> 
> I haven't decided how I feel about that either. On the one hand, more competition in the phone market hopefully improves things for everyone... but on the other, is it even fair for the government to force them to sell their lines? I suppose if the government subsidized part of the construction it's a different discussion.. . but if a private phone company put everything up, then it seems like they should have a right not to sell.
> 
> Other companies should be free to run their own lines of course.
> 
> In a perfect world, multiple companies could join forces to help speed up fiber-optic installations with the agreement that it would be jointly owned or something by the companies and it could be used to carry whatever phone/TV service a customer wanted.


I am guessing (maybe you guys know better) that the reasoning is that those wires were bought and paid for years ago off of the huge profit margins the phone companies "used" to have.

I am also going to guess that any redistribution costs have upkeep as part of the cost charged.

-JB


----------



## eatonjb

well as far as cable.. in my area Ameritech now WOW made a huge move to install there own new infrastructure . now there wires overlap Comcast.


i guess it all depends.


----------



## James Long

jrb531 said:


> I am also going to guess that any redistribution costs have upkeep as part of the cost charged.


The competitive companies normally are buying dry loops. Sometimes they will completely resell the incumbent's service, but normally it is a case of routing the wire to the competitive company's switch instead of their own. The incumbent company is REQURED by law to keep the circuits running, including sending their tech out to customers. The techs in my area are not permitted to identify themselves as employees of the incumbent company when servicing lines for a competitive company. (It looks bad to have "Verizon" techs fixing "US Xchange" lines -- so they just don't tell you they are Verizon techs.  )

For higher capacity lines the competitive companies buy the service at a regulated low low price for their resale. We keep getting offers at work from a competitive local company who would buy a T1 line from the telco and provide any mix of data and live phone over it that we request (up to the capacity - 24 voice lines or 1.536 data). We turn these offers down because we already have a T1 direct into a long distance network for our LD calls (really cheap price) and prefer direct copper connections for the few local lines we keep. No MUXs on site.


eatonjb said:


> well as far as cable.. in my area Ameritech now WOW made a huge move to install there own new infrastructure . now there wires overlap Comcast.


Perhaps Comcast could not perform to the level Ameritech required? They are providing more that basic phone service so separate systems makes sense. I don't hear about cable companies sharing systems as much as telephone. At the core, Comcast is a cable system that also does phone/internet on it's cable system - not an incumbent phone company.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> (It looks bad to have "Verizon" techs fixing "US Xchange" lines -- so they just don't tell you they are Verizon techs. )


But with a van or bucket truck parked on the shoulder of the road with a Verizon logo and the red and black pin stripes, isn't it kind of obvious


----------



## INHUMANITY

I'm gonna go off-topic for a second and ask...

Do you guys think we'll ever see Dish providing free on-demand goodies like Comcast provides?

I already have my 622 hooked up to an ethernet cable and am eagerly awaiting its activation.


----------



## James Long

Steve Mehs said:


> But with a van or bucket truck parked on the shoulder of the road with a Verizon logo and the red and black pin stripes, isn't it kind of obvious


It can be ... based on some of the techs I've spoken to, I wouldn't be suprised to see magnet signs covering the VZ logos when on another call. Personally, I think it is stupid and wonder how they get into people's homes without showing proper ID. Making it normal for telco employees not to show ID is dangerous.


INHUMANITY said:


> I'm gonna go off-topic for a second and ask...


Sorry ... can't let this thread go off topic. Nope, no way no how. 



INHUMANITY said:


> Do you guys think we'll ever see Dish providing free on-demand goodies like Comcast provides?


Not like Comcast, but they already do provide free "TV Entertainment" programs that are VOD. Eventually they want to make it more user based --- feeding things to you that you are likely to watch. The DishONLINE service will be cool if you have a good internet connection.


----------



## INHUMANITY

James Long said:


> Not like Comcast, but they already do provide free "TV Entertainment" programs that are VOD. Eventually they want to make it more user based --- feeding things to you that you are likely to watch. The DishONLINE service will be cool if you have a good internet connection.


I've got a 6Mbit cable connection, so that's not a problem.

What free VOD stuff are you talking about?

I have yet to see anything available for "free" in their lineup that's anything like Comcast's VOD.


----------



## James Long

That's why I said "not like Comcast".


----------



## INHUMANITY

James Long said:


> That's why I said "not like Comcast".


So we don't have poop? 10-4!


----------



## lamp525

INHUMANITY said:


> So we don't have poop? 10-4!


any rumors about new channels with the price increase?? the 200 package??


----------



## Jim5506

Cable infrastructure and satellite infrastructure are so different it would be very difficult for satellite to match cable with VOD.

BTY, who really uses VOD anyway? I don't even use pay-per-view very often. Having VOD is not that big of a deal IMHO.


----------



## eatonjb

well, I don't use VoD because I am pretty good at scheduleing my DVR to grab what I want to watch.. I am nocturnal so I watch all day shows at night. My friends are also night walkers, but either dont have a DVR or don't know how to use them, so VoD is nice cause they can watch there shows at night when they are awake. and since I am a night walker, and most of my friends are also, I think we are the type of people who VoD makes good sence. and these are the people who use it. also people who start watching a show and then want to see the older eppisodes are also viable people to use VoD

e..b


----------



## Steve Mehs

I don't know how it is in the DBS world, but on Cable VOD is awesome. After hearing how great Dexter is on Showtime, I can catch up with the series by watching it on Showtime On Demand. Comedy Central On Demand used to show Crank Yankers, which was not available on Comedy Central for the longest time. I started watching Six Feet Under in the third season, I was able to see what I missed on HBO On Demand. My Mother uses Lifestyles On Demand all the time to get recipes from Food Network. With true On Demand, the phrase ‘300 channels and nothing on’ does not exist. 

Pay Per View has been replaced by On Demand. No more 50 channels of PPV wasting bandwidth, just 1 Channel of Movies On Demand and HD Movies On Demand. The selection of movies on HD On Demand is amazing, right now there’s a dozen new movies available in HD, I’ll be ordering See No Evil and An American Haunting in HD. HD On Demand blows away the selection of movies on HD PPV on DBS and it’s cheaper too.


----------



## jrb531

Steve Mehs said:


> I don't know how it is in the DBS world, but on Cable VOD is awesome. After hearing how great Dexter is on Showtime, I can catch up with the series by watching it on Showtime On Demand. Comedy Central On Demand used to show Crank Yankers, which was not available on Comedy Central for the longest time. I started watching Six Feet Under in the third season, I was able to see what I missed on HBO On Demand. My Mother uses Lifestyles On Demand all the time to get recipes from Food Network. With true On Demand, the phrase '300 channels and nothing on' does not exist.
> 
> Pay Per View has been replaced by On Demand. No more 50 channels of PPV wasting bandwidth, just 1 Channel of Movies On Demand and HD Movies On Demand. The selection of movies on HD On Demand is amazing, right now there's a dozen new movies available in HD, I'll be ordering See No Evil and An American Haunting in HD. HD On Demand blows away the selection of movies on HD PPV on DBS and it's cheaper too.


And what does VOD cost? This is the kicker. Pay Per View costs about $3-$5 per show and the show has already been out on DVD for months in which I can rent it for about $1 with a monthly rental plan (less or more depending on how many you watch)

VOD sucks on Dish because they "try" and guess what you want and force a download on you which takes time, space, electricity yadda yadda which makes zero sence to me cause I have never nor will never watch a VOD until "I" get to pick them "and" they are no more than a buck.

When I can rent an entire season of any show (I have to wait a year until they are out on DVD of course) for pennies a show you can sure as heck bet I'm not paying a few bucks per show.

Nothing and I mean nothing is that good that I cannot wait for the rentals 

I am sure that they did tons of studies that tell them that they make more $$$ renting shows on PPV or VOD for more $$$ for less people than more people for less $$$. How? I dunno... it seems to me that if these shows were a buck people would be renting shows left and right... I know I would.

Charge me $24 for 24 episodes of 24 and you got me.... charge me more and I wait till next year... rent the entire season for $1 a disk for 4 shows or 25 cents.

You do the math 

-JB


----------



## James Long

lamp525 said:


> any rumors about new channels with the price increase?? the 200 package??


AT-200 is identical to AT-120 except the count now includes Sirius (to pass the 200 threshold).

There are always rumors of new channels ... the current one (on the Dish Channel Chart) regards Hallmark and Hallmark Movie Channel. But it is unclear what is even rumored (will it be Hallmark or HMC in AT-200?) so it is best left in the realm of rumors.

It has also been mentioned that A&E Crime and Investigation channel may come online to replace CourtTV if no deal is struck by February. At least that rumor has a source (Charlie Ergen at CES).


----------



## Steve Mehs

> And what does VOD cost? This is the kicker. Pay Per View costs about $3-$5 per show and the show has already been out on DVD for months in which I can rent it for about $1 with a monthly rental plan (less or more depending on how many you watch)


Video On Demand is free. I get something like 25 channels of VOD from regular cable networks, TNT OD, TBS OD, PBS Kids OD, Lifestyles OD (A HGTV, Food, Fine Living, DIY Combo), Comedy Central OD, etc. These are absolutely free to all digital cable subscribers. HBO OD, SHO OD, MAX OD and TMC OD are included with their respective premium movie packages at no extra cost.

Movies On Demand and HD Movies On Demand are the replacements for PPV, like I said above. All movies are $3.95 (SD or HD) and you can keep them for up to 24 hours. So essentially you only pay for VOD if you want the new movies that most providers have on PPV and have not hit HBO or SHO yet.


----------



## TNGTony

Um... VOD aint "free" to everyone. It may be included in some packages, but after adding everything up, they end up being more expensive than Dish EVERY time. This is my experience with TWC in Cinci vs Dish. It is the ONLY reason why I didn't cancel Dish service when Dish refused to send me a 622. They insist on sending an installer with it. I want a receiver, not an installer! I was on the ledge to jump to cable with HD and the same programming as on Dish, but the bill would have been $30 more a month and would have LESS HD channels (more SD that I problably wouldn't watch) and VOD I "might" have watched.

So, "free" is not the word I would use for VOD. 

See ya
Tony


----------



## Steve Mehs

Well it's included with digital cable, so I don't have to pay extra to access it so it's free.  Cable is more expensive due to rental fees and in most cases DVR fees. Like I posted earlier, Dish offers me almost no savings when everythings added up, since I will absolutely never settle for a slower broadband connection, dropping cable would raise my RR $15 (or $20 if I even get Phone), washing out any gain.


----------



## TNGTony

I was factoring in RR for my service too.  Programming pkg to programming pkg locally, TWC is more a bit more expensive than dish, but it offers VOD and a few more SD and a ton less HD.

AFTER THAT, you have to add two extra "a la carte" SD packs to get the Encore package and The Movie Channel and then on top of that you have rental, DVR, and HD DVR fees that add up to $40 a month to get the same as I get on Dish!!!

Deduct the $25 savings on RR and that is where I got the $30 more a month on TWC

You can call VOD "free" if you want, but it would still be wrong. The word or phrase is "included" or "at no extra charge to the package that is more expensive than a comparable Dish package".

I will say to you the same thing I say to people that say you get locals "free" on cable: Try calling and asking the cable company to give you the VOD channels for free with nothing else citing the commercials or ads saying VOD is free and see how far you get.

Again, I would have switched to TWC last month if the price would have been closer. I almost switch until I started adding up the nickles and dimes after the packages!

See ya
Tony


----------



## Steve Mehs

Okay, playing word games, VOD is not free. But in most cases locals and HD locals are free with cable provided your TV has a built in QAM tuner. But by your logic they are not free, since you need to buy the TV 

Your TWC franchise doesn't include The Movie Channel with the Showtime Package?


----------



## jrb531

Steve Mehs said:


> Okay, playing word games, VOD is not free. But in most cases locals and HD locals are free with cable provided your TV has a built in QAM tuner. But by your logic they are not free, since you need to buy the TV
> 
> Your TWC franchise doesn't include The Movie Channel with the Showtime Package?


Kind of like we get all those stupid music channels "free" with Dish but in reality we are paying for them cause we have no choice as I cannot elect to "unsubscribe" to them LOL.

If they were truly "free" I would be able to put a receiver in my car and be able to actually use those music channels. I'm sure some people use them but the fact remains that for most people the music channels are little more than a way for Dish to "claim" more channels in a package than you really get. Even if all those channels only took up the room of one video stream I would rather have the extra channel... I suspect that they might even take more room than that.

Go ala-cart!

*smiles*

-JB


----------



## minnow

Tony,

Did you mention to TWC that you currently have Dish and were looking to switch ? TWC in our area of upstate New York gave me an offer I couldn't refuse. I'm saving at least $30 bucks a month for the first year and $15 in the second year which includes phone and RR internet over what I was paying Dish, the phone company and TWC for the RR internet service. And went from AT-60 with Dish to digital cable, a choice of 2 premiums, two HD-DVR's and HD program package. I'm getting at least double the channels I had with the AT-60. TWC is very aggresive price wise for those that currently have satellite TV service.


----------



## Chris Freeland

Here in Chattanooga once your promotion deal has expired, with or without a internet bundle, satellite is cheaper with SD only and cable is cheaper with HD, since E* charges $20/mo extra for HD. Comcast includes HD with a DVR weather you need it or not, currently the Moto 6412 DVR's add $9.95/mo ($11.95/mo starting Feb 1) each however, otherwise for a non DVR HD DVR STB, Comcast charges an extra $5/mo for HD and if you have a TV with a QAM tuner and Cable card their is no charge. 1 std STB is included in all digital packs however if you want digital on multiple TV's it is an extra $6.95/mo per additional digital outlet and if you want DVR and or HD upgrades, the DVR and HD rate above is in addition to this. Here the Comcast equivelant to AT180/250, which includes the Encore channels, Flix and Sundance channels instead of the TMC channels, is called Digital Plus, it will sost $64.94/mo beginning Feb 1, before you add extra's like DVR's, extra STB's, HD etc. Comcast HD might be cheaper, but they only have 7 National HD basic channels compared to 26 on E*.


----------



## killzone

Hmmm. It seems that Cablevison in my area has lower prices than Dish. The biggest issue is that their packages include HD programming. They obviously don't have all the Voom channels, but they have ALL the locals including WB and UPN, plus INHD, TNT HD,ESPN HD, YES HD, MSG HD, Universal HD + the premiums in HD (HBO etc). I don't think Fios has extra charges for HD programming either.

So whats the deal with D* and E*? It seems that the trend is not to charge extra for HD channels, so why do they charge for this? I can see dish wanting to charge for the Voom channels, but that should be a separate from HD.


----------



## wimcolgate

puck said:


> Been with Dish for about 10 years. This is not one of the better years.... lose my distants, lose Philly... then get stuck w/Wilkes Barre monkey news channels... and by the way we're raising your price $5.
> 
> One word... FIOS!!! If you build it (in my neighborhood), I will switch.


I've been w/ Dish even longer -- and I will switch to FIOS too -- can't beat the braodband speed either!

However, I tried their web applet to figure out if I have service at my house -- and it can't even find my house (keeps thinking I live a few towns north...); and there is no email address to complain that their applet is broken.

So I'm pretty sure FIOS is not in my neighborhood -- but as soon as they do, I will switch.

Wim


----------



## Steve Mehs

I’m on a pretty decent promo. $58.70 per month off for 2 years. Free install, no commitment and I got $100 off the first bill since I turned in an old dish and receiver. I’m getting digital cable, all the premiums, and 2 boxes for $51.95 for 24 months. Retail value is $110.65 (Digital Cable $55.95, all the premiums $38.80, box rental $7.95 each). DVR fees are not included in the promo neither is the Sports Tier and HD Tier. That’s about $22 there, then $70 for RR and another $4.30something for the franchise fee. 

My promo will end in Feb 2008. Provided TW can get Digital Phone to me by the time it ends, I will not consider switching or dropping anything. All In One Premium is too good of a value, but when you take out digital phone it doesn’t look so hot.


----------



## Paul Secic

TNGTony said:


> I am surprised I didn't see a thread about this. Anyway, in the Retailer Chat yesterday, Dish announced what is now its annual price changes on many packages. The rate changes range from a $2.99 reduction to a $10 increase
> 
> From http://ekb.dbstalk.com/rateincrease2007.htm
> 
> BASIC PACKAGES
> Dish Family No Change
> America's Top 60 renamed >> America's Top 100 -- *No Change *
> America's Top 60 Plus renamed >> America's Top 100 Plus -- *No Change *
> America's Top 120 renamed >> America's Top 200 *$3 increase*
> America's Top 180 renamed >> America's Top 250 *$3 increase*
> America's Everything Pack -This package includes the DVR service fee. *$5 increase*
> 
> The new AT100 and AT100+ will contain the 32 Muzak audio channels available on AT120 now
> 
> Dish Latino *No Change *
> Dish Latino Plus *No Change *
> Dish Latino Dos *$2 increase*
> Dish Latino Max *$2 increase*
> Dish Latino Everything (Package no longer available to new subscribers) *$5 increase*
> Basic Package + Any 2 Premium Packages - Discontinued. *$2.00 increase*
> 
> Great Wall Package * No Change *
> 
> High Definition Packages
> 
> HD Pack Package *No Change *
> ($20 with any basic package or $29.99 stand alone
> (stand alone HD Pack not available to Lease Subscribers or Subscribers under contract. There is a $6 HD Enabling Fee added to this Price)
> 
> HD Bronze Discontinued - New AT100+HD Pack -- *No Change*
> HD Silver Discontinued - New AT200+HD Pack -- *$3 Increase*
> HD Gold Discontinued - New AT250+ HD Pack -- *$3 Increase*
> HD Platinum Discontinued. - New AEP + HD Pack -- *$10 Increase!!!!!*
> 
> Premium Packages
> 
> HBO The Works *No Change *
> Showtime Unlimited *$1 Increase*
> Cinemax (Multi-Max) *$1 Increase*
> Starz *$1 Increase*
> Playboy *No Change *
> 
> Any 2 Premium Packages Or 1 premium package & Playboy -- *$0.99 Decrease *
> Any 3 Premium Packages Or 2 premium packages & Playboy -- *$0.01 Increase*
> Any 4 Premium Packages Or 3 premium package & Playboy -- *$2.01 Increase*
> All 4 Premium Packages + Playboy -- *$2.99 Decrease *
> 
> History of Dish Network's Price Increases HERE
> 
> See ya
> Tony


Um, where are the charts?????


----------



## TNGTony

What charts?

http://ekb.dbstalk.com ?


----------



## Paul Secic

TNGTony said:


> What charts?
> 
> http://ekb.dbstalk.com ?


New channel lineup.

Sorry Tony


----------



## James Long

Paul Secic said:


> New channel lineup.


There is none. 

Add CDMusic (32 channels) to AT60 to get AT100 ... that is all.


----------



## TNGTony

Paul,

I am still confused.  What new channels? Are you talking about the package renaming with higher numbers? Just in case you are, remember that each package already has at least the number of channels listed on the new package names.

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long

It would be nice to have the new programming "grids" that retailers use ... but E* have not made those available to the public yet.


----------



## jrb531

Chris Freeland said:


> but they only have 7 National HD basic channels compared to 26 on E*.


But how many "real" HD channels does Dish have?

Cartoon Channel?
Fashion Channel?
Kung-Fu Channel?
Video Game Channel?

Need I go on?

If those 7 channels are "real" HD channels then it may not be as easy to compare them just by counting channels

-JB


----------



## killzone

jrb531 said:


> But how many "real" HD channels does Dish have?
> 
> Cartoon Channel?
> Fashion Channel?
> Kung-Fu Channel?
> Video Game Channel?
> 
> Need I go on?
> 
> If those 7 channels are "real" HD channels then it may not be as easy to compare them just by counting channels
> 
> -JB


Here is the full list of Dish HD channels. Not including the 3 premiums movie channels. From all those channels there are maybe 4 that I would watch, TNT, ESPN,ESPN2, NFL. Of those 4 I rarely watch epsn2 or NFL. There are maybe 4 or 5 other channels that others might consider good. The rest is all fluff. There is a TON of subsidization going on with this package and thats why I pay the $6 HD enabling fee rather than pay $20 for 2 or 3 channels that I would watch.

*Showtime HD
*Starz HDTV 
*HBO HD
Animania HD
Family Room HD
GamePlay HD
Discovery HD Theater
Equator HD
National Geographic Channel HD
DISH Network PPV in HD
Film Fest HD
Food Network HD
HDNet Movies
Kung Fu HD
Monsters HD 
World Cinema HD
HDNews
Rave HD
ESPN HD
ESPN2 HD
NFL Network HD
Rush HD
WorldSport HD
Gallery HD
HDNet
HGTV HD
TNT HD
Treasure HD
Ultra HD
Universal HD


----------



## eatonjb

killzone said:


> Here is the full list of Dish HD channels. Not including the 3 premiums movie channels. From all those channels there are maybe 4 that I would watch, TNT, ESPN,ESPN2, NFL. Of those 4 I rarely watch epsn2 or NFL. There are maybe 4 or 5 other channels that others might consider good. The rest is all fluff. There is a TON of subsidization going on with this package and thats why I pay the $6 HD enabling fee rather than pay $20 for 2 or 3 channels that I would watch.
> 
> *Showtime HD
> *Starz HDTV
> *HBO HD
> Animania HD
> Family Room HD
> GamePlay HD
> Discovery HD Theater
> Equator HD
> National Geographic Channel HD
> DISH Network PPV in HD
> Film Fest HD
> Food Network HD
> HDNet Movies
> Kung Fu HD
> Monsters HD
> World Cinema HD
> HDNews
> Rave HD
> ESPN HD
> ESPN2 HD
> NFL Network HD
> Rush HD
> WorldSport HD
> Gallery HD
> HDNet
> HGTV HD
> TNT HD
> Treasure HD
> Ultra HD
> Universal HD


what would be ultimate.. take some of the Voom stations and concolidate them. so there are less repeats like that .

then bring in some new national channels (when they are avaliable). wonder what the exclusively to D* are going to expire. (if they do get all 100 in 365 days!)


----------



## harsh

killzone said:


> Here is the full list of Dish HD channels. Not including the 3 premiums movie channels. From all those channels there are maybe 4 that I would watch, TNT, ESPN,ESPN2, NFL.


Are you passing judgement on any of these channels without having watched them?

Was there ever a time when you said "eewwww" at the mere mention of those of the same age, but opposite gender?

There have been both surprises and confirmations in my viewing of the channels available to me.

It is baffling to hear from those who proclaim loudly that they have no use for locals but complain bitterly (perhaps on behalf of a family member) when their locals don't record or are not up to par.

I fully agree that there should be some consolidation in the Voom channels and not just to reduce the number of repeats. I'd like to see gang/prison movies leave Kung Fu. Aren't there enough martial arts movies out there to fill a schedule?

I also have to say that if it weren't for the live sporting events on TNT, that channel could go away too. Their insistence on widening 4:3 content makes me queasy.


----------



## jrb531

killzone said:


> There is a TON of subsidization going on with this package and thats why I pay the $6 HD enabling fee rather than pay $20 for 2 or 3 channels that I would watch.


If I could pay that $6 and drop HD I would in a heartbeat! Too bad I have 12 months left on this 622 contract 

If I could go back in time I would have stayed with my 508 and 501 and saved a ton of $$$. I do like the 622 so at least I got that but $200 to least the 622 plus an extra $20 a month for 18 months - OUCH!

I know... my fault but ask me what I'm doing in 12 more months 

-JB


----------



## DoyleS

I plan to keep the HD channels but throttle back from Gold to Silver or whatever they call it. During high season, there are plenty of good HD shows that I watch on the network channels. I don't need the news in HD but movies and drama shows are much better in 16:9 with HD. The current pricing plans for Sat and Cable will likely cause some reevaluation in what people are willing to pay for. 

..Doyle


----------



## harsh

jrb531 said:


> If I could pay that $6 and drop HD I would in a heartbeat! Too bad I have 12 months left on this 622 contract


What's stopping you from throttling your programming back then? The commitment is to 18 months of programming, not 18 months of the ViP622 nor DishHD if I read the contract correctly.


----------



## Paul Secic

TNGTony said:


> Paul,
> 
> I am still confused.  What new channels? Are you talking about the package renaming with higher numbers? Just in case you are, remember that each package already has at least the number of channels listed on the new package names.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


Gotcha! Status qou, except AT60/AT100.


----------



## killzone

harsh said:


> What's stopping you from throttling your programming back then? The commitment is to 18 months of programming, not 18 months of the ViP622 nor DishHD if I read the contract correctly.


I'm pretty sure that if you lease the 622 you are required to subscribe to one of the HD packages.


----------



## killzone

harsh said:


> Are you passing judgement on any of these channels without having watched them?


I've seen the programming on most of those channels. Some of the Voom channels have very good visuals BUT it's not like I sit around watching TV for 10 hours a day such that I want to watch people skiing or kyaking or reruns of shows I've already seen, in HD.

Some of the programming might be decent for the "proper" audience, but there are too many niche channels in there and many that only have a few programs that were shot with HD cameras. It's hardly worth $20 to me.

I really only need the locals (with the superstations) and a few of the regular package channels in HD and I would be happy.


----------



## CABill

killzone said:


> I'm pretty sure that if you lease the 622 you are required to subscribe to one of the HD packages.


I have to agree with harsh that jrb531 can drop DishHD programming any time he wants - but he'll have to pay the $6 HD Enable fee. The DHA and DIU lease agreements explicitly state DishFAMILY as minimum programming for 18 months. All jrb531 has to do is phone a CSR and ask to change to ATxxx. They would likely mention a $5 downgrade fee. People have leased 622 and never subscribed to DishHD at all.


----------



## jrb531

CABill said:


> I have to agree with harsh that jrb531 can drop DishHD programming any time he wants - but he'll have to pay the $6 HD Enable fee. The DHA and DIU lease agreements explicitly state DishFAMILY as minimum programming for 18 months. All jrb531 has to do is phone a CSR and ask to change to ATxxx. They would likely mention a $5 downgrade fee. People have leased 622 and never subscribed to DishHD at all.


Thanks!

I will try that as soon as I get home. It was my original understanding that I needed to keep an "HD" package for 18 months but if they will take that $6 I will gladly save the other $14 

Last question.... do I still get to keep my HD locals... those I watch 

I'm assuming since I'm paying for locals that the HD versions are included... I hope 

-JB


----------



## CABill

jrb531 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I will try that as soon as I get home. It was my original understanding that I needed to keep an "HD" package for 18 months but if they will take that $6 I will gladly save the other $14
> 
> Last question.... do I still get to keep my HD locals... those I watch
> 
> I'm assuming since I'm paying for locals that the HD versions are included... I hope
> 
> -JB


You will continue to get HD locals with a ViP receiver and a subscription to locals. I'd even expect you to get HBO-HD if you subscribed to HBO. Not true of ESPN-HD, TNT-HD, ... that are part of the DishHD package.

If you login to My Account at the DISH website, you can click on Equipment Info, then DISH'n It Up, and you should get to https://customersupport.dishnetwork.com/customercare/equipment/processEquipmentUpgrades.do which says at the bottom:
Monthly subscription to DishHD programming is required for HD receivers or a monthly $6.00 HD Enabling fee applies. Please call for details.​That covers an existing subscriber in plain text. One has to decipher fine print stuff in the actual agreements for new subs or DIU upgrades, but you get to the same either / or result.

Please post your results.


----------



## Eric Jordan

I'm fairly late to the game... wondering if anyone can help me figure out

currently I have HD Bronze + Great Wall package, signed up last month (12/2006), supposedly a 18-month thing.

with the new pricing coming up,



TNGTony said:


> HD Pack Package *No Change *
> ($20 with any basic package or $29.99 stand alone
> (stand alone HD Pack not available to Lease Subscribers or Subscribers under contract. There is a $6 HD Enabling Fee added to this Price)
> 
> HD Bronze Discontinued - New AT100+HD Pack -- *No Change*


can I switch to Great Wall package (since it is listed as a "basic package") + HD pack? (I watch only sports program on TNTHD and ESPNHD while wife watches the Chinese programs most of the time)


----------



## DoyleS

I think I finally got my options figured out since my annual renewal is next week. 
Currently I have Top 180 +HD + Voom and pay the enabling fee.
Options:
Annual renewal of Top 180 =$550 or $45.83/mo Add full HD pack on Feb 1 for $20 and have newly named Top 250+ HD for $65.83 vs Monthly cost of $72.95

Drop to Top 120 Option:
Annual renewal of $440 or $36.67/mo + $20 HD package for $56.67 vs $62.95. Downgrade probably hits me with a $5 fee.

As I understand this, I have to do this in two steps. My annual renewal next week followed by a change from HD+Voom+Enabling Fee to $20 HD Pack on Feb 1. 

They don't make it easy do they?

..Doyle


----------



## CABill

Eric Jordan said:


> I'm fairly late to the game... wondering if anyone can help me figure out
> 
> currently I have HD Bronze + Great Wall package, signed up last month (12/2006), supposedly a 18-month thing.
> 
> with the new pricing coming up,
> 
> can I switch to Great Wall package (since it is listed as a "basic package") + HD pack? (I watch only sports program on TNTHD and ESPNHD while wife watches the Chinese programs most of the time)


Actually, I think you are still a little early.  I've not seen any actual "announcement" from DISH for the new prices. The 1st post came from leaks about the info disclosed on the Retailer Chat. It is likely spot on, but I never saw a "press release" in http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-news or anything on their website about pricing.

My UNinformed opinion is you should be able to drop AT60 (AT100 then) for just GW and DishHD. That is certainly what the 1st post implies. Same for a DISHLation subscriber. But reading the 1st post also implies DishFAMILY is a Basic Package that could add DishHD's HD Pack for $20. I've seen several posts saying that won't be possible. You can't do it before 1-Feb, so wait to see what they say then.


----------



## CABill

DoyleS said:


> As I understand this, I have to do this in two steps. My annual renewal next week followed by a change from HD+Voom+Enabling Fee to $20 HD Pack on Feb 1.


If they do mention a $5 downgrade, it doesn't hurt at all to just ask for it to be waived. Even pretty low level CSRs have discretion to waive it, and have for me when asked. But I don't think you have to pick AT200 or AT250 before 1-Feb. You have a 30 day period around a renewal date (or when you change to annual) to change. As long as you have locked before 1-Feb (sometimes, it has been 27th/28th of Jan when annuals stop being available), you've "locked" the $3 increase. If you change after 1-Feb, my experience has been to be credited back "11.9 months" at the new rate. "Past history is no guarantee of future results", but I'll try going to AT120 annual in late Jan and back to AT100 in Feb.

The DishDVR Advantage plans aren't crystal clear to me, but you may have to recompute once their details are known. The $49.99 AT200 + locals + plus 1 DVR fee (I'm assuming it applies to an existing DVR and you don't need to get a "new" one) is $69.99 with HD Pack. That is a tad more than your $56.67 but add $5.99 locals and $5.98 DVR fee, and you are $1.35/month from the $69.99 figure, don't have to prepay for a year, and are price guaranteed for longer than a year. It includes 18 months of DHPP (I'd hate to give up my $1.99 plan, but it might save $2/month more).

No, they don't make it easy! If you also have a premium, there was another DishDVR Advantage for AT250 too. Wasn't mentioned in their press release, but it was described here.


----------



## DoyleS

Highly confusing with the minimally defined DVR Advantage. I have two 508 DVRs which do not have fees so being able to eliminate the fee on the 622 as well as have locals and the service package is attractive. 

Whoever is setting up all of their pricing plans must have worked in a Dim Sum restaurant. You don't know what your bill is until they pickup all the dishes at the end of the meal!

..Doyle


----------



## James Long

The $5 increase for DirecTV is apparently effective February 6th.
Total Choice goes from $44.99 to $49.99 and loses 13 channels!ESPN CLASSIC
E! Entertainment Television
Fox Reality
Oxygen
National Geographic Channel
Discovery Health
Superstation WGN
Sleuth
G4 Videogame TV
The Golf Channel
Speed Channel
Versus
FUEL TV​To get those channels, D* customers will need to subscribe to "Total Choice Extra" (formerly called Total Choice Plus) for $54.99 (up from $49.99) or a new "Total Choice Plus" that is TCE plus the DVR fee.

In effect, TC subscribers who want to continue viewing the 13 channels above will have to pay $10 more than they are currently paying. The other option is to pay $5 more _and_ lose 13 channels.

D* is also beginning to bundle HD with SD, charging a $10.99 "technology fee" (apparently per account) and opening all HD to customers who subscribe to the related SD channels. Customers can save 99 cents by subscribing to Total Choice Plus HD for $69.99.

High end customers will appreciate that Total Choice Premier is remaining $99.99 (no HD). It seems that D* would rather "stick it to the little guy". 

Just a note from the other side of the fence.


----------



## TNGTony

Eric Jordan said:


> I'm fairly late to the game... wondering if anyone can help me figure out
> 
> currently I have HD Bronze + Great Wall package, signed up last month (12/2006), supposedly a 18-month thing.
> 
> with the new pricing coming up,
> 
> can I switch to Great Wall package (since it is listed as a "basic package") + HD pack? (I watch only sports program on TNTHD and ESPNHD while wife watches the Chinese programs most of the time)


As far as I know, yes you can. But I would confirm that with Dish. The Great Wall package is definitely considered a basic package just like Dish Latino and AT100.

See ya
Tony


----------



## FTA Michael

Here's a log for the a la carte fire. In a speech at the Association of National Advertisers' Advertising Law and Business Affairs Conference, FCC chairman Kevin Martin said he thought that advertisers should back a la carte. And heaven help us, he used another analogy. 

"The current tying of channels of video programming is much the same as requiring consumers to buy 200 magazines or none at all. No consumer wants to be required to buy everything. And no advertiser wants to advertise on channels that no one watches. So I have to ask, why is your industry unenthusiastic about a la carte programming?"

The whole story: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6408411.html


----------



## jrb531

FTA Michael said:


> Here's a log for the a la carte fire. In a speech at the Association of National Advertisers' Advertising Law and Business Affairs Conference, FCC chairman Kevin Martin said he thought that advertisers should back a la carte. And heaven help us, he used another analogy.
> 
> "The current tying of channels of video programming is much the same as requiring consumers to buy 200 magazines or none at all. No consumer wants to be required to buy everything. And no advertiser wants to advertise on channels that no one watches. So I have to ask, why is your industry unenthusiastic about a la carte programming?"
> 
> The whole story: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6408411.html


Love it or hate it the simple fact is that we could get a much better price on "everything" in life if we bought in bulk.

Pay TV is set up in multiple "bulk" packages and much like many people buy soda by the case to get that "per can" price down to about 25 cents (or less) a can... this does not put the stores and pop machines out of business who still sell them for $1 a can.

Yes we are all sick of these comparisons but sick or not the comparisons are still valid.

I fully admit that ala-cart will raise prices for some people as it shifts to a more realistic pricing system. I just fail to see how you can stop ala-cart from eventually being offered.

Lets look at both a 5% and 10% yearly increase in Pay TV for someone with a $50 and $100 current bill:

1. 2007 = $50.0, $100.0
2. 2008 = $52.5, $105.0 - $55.0, $110.0
3. 2009 = $55.1, $110.3 - $60.5, $121.0
4. 2010 = $57.9, $115.8 - $66.6, $133.1
5. 2011 = $60.8, $121.6 - $73.3, $146.4

Now numbers being what they are show that if you have minimal Pay TV then a 5% increase each year ($50.0 to $60.9 over 5 years or about $1 a year) is doable but if you have the full package even a "moderate" 5% a year builds up fast:

05% a year = $100.0 to $121.6 = $21.6 a month or $4.32 a year
10% a year = $100.0 to $146.4 = $46.4 a month or $9.28 a year

So I forsee this entire problem coming to a head as the Pay TV industry kill off itself much like the music industry has done.

People for years begged to be able to buy individual songs and not be "forced" to buy entire albums just to get the 1-2 songs they likes. The music industry stopped selling singles to force increased sales of albums. The same arguments were presents by big business then that single song sales would cause the end to life as we know it and look what we have now.

I can buy songs on the net for 79 or 99 cents each! Did the music industry do this on their own? No - they had to be forced and they spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to fight what the "public" wanted and in the end they lost anyway.

Never forget that for over a decade the price of music was about:

Album = $2 to produce, sold for $8
Cassette = $2 to produce, sold for $8
CD = $1 to produce, sold for $15

In other words they ripped us off for years and then we were supposed to feel sorry for them when the backlass hit and they were forced to adhere to the rules of other businesses instead of there "unofficial" monopolistic practices.

Like the music industry, Pay TV's "greed" will cause it's own destruction. Sooner or later the public will wake up and what makes Pay TV think they are any different than the music industry in regards to copyright protection, downloading and public distribution.

You price something that "most" people feel is fair and reasonable and "most"
people will pay for it. You price something that people feel is unjust and they start to justify illegal activity such as downloading, copying etc...

While I am "not" advocating such activity I will say that the only thing keeping "more" people from widespread copying of Pay TV is file size and as more people get faster connections this will disappear and you can see what is coming.

My predictions... what are yours?

-JB


----------



## Eric Jordan

TNGTony said:


> As far as I know, yes you can. But I would confirm that with Dish. The Great Wall package is definitely considered a basic package just like Dish Latino and AT100.





CABill said:


> My UNinformed opinion is you should be able to drop AT60 (AT100 then) for just GW and DishHD.


Thanks Bill & Tony. I'll call Dish in two weeks to find out...


----------



## Greg Bimson

It is at this point I will say I agree with jrb531. As long as there is a market-based approach to allow both the current packaging scheme and an a la carte option, I have no problem at all with that. I just don't want to then hear "why is my a la carte HGTV $3 a month when it costs only 20 cents in the package?"


----------



## patmurphey

Can someone point me to the stocks of those companies that are ripping us off. I'd sure like to share in that extra money. Or, perhaps, that is not really happening.

Pat


----------



## jrb531

Greg Bimson said:


> It is at this point I will say I agree with jrb531. As long as there is a market-based approach to allow both the current packaging scheme and an a la carte option, I have no problem at all with that. I just don't want to then hear "why is my a la carte HGTV $3 a month when it costs only 20 cents in the package?"


Greg I want the option for both also but anytime people are allowed to drop channels it will mean that the costs will shift. I do not for a minute think that the Pay TV industry will make less money. Perhaps some channels on life support today will go defunct but if these so called "nitch" channels have enough quality and hard core support then people will pay the extra money needed to support them. If not? Well then they go away.

How many Pay TV channels have "ever" gone away? Very few if any. The ones that do are usually just renamed or absorbed into other channels.

Now what will happen if we are allowed Ala-cart is that the Pay TV industry will have to operate like any other business. Charge too much and you risk losing subscribers and ad revenue. Right now they can basically charge any damn thing they want because "we" have no choice but I'll not beat a dead horse... we have talked about this enough.

Each and every time I read about all the money Pay TV spends trying to fight public choice I think about why they just do not take that $$$ and lower prices!

Each and every time I read about ESPN outbidding Free TV... each and every time I read about some spoiled overpaid sports figure whining about why they are not being treated fairly by "only" being paid 15 million instead of 20 million I grow steamed that I am forced to contribute to this messed up system because I have to pay for ESPN and cannot cancel it.

Every time I read about Dish and DTV sending up yet another 500 million bird I think about what my bill would be like today if that merger was allowed and all that wasted $$$ could have been saved just because Cable "bribed" members of congress into somehow thinking that a sole Dish company would change those in the country more than those in the city.

Are we really that stupid?

Apparently some think so 

-JB


----------



## BillJ

Are the price increases real?

I ask this because I've never received any announcement from E*. And now I have my bill for 1/27 thru 2/26. The price is unchanged and there was no price change notice in the envelope or on the bill. 

Not that I'm complaining about another month at the old price, but there's been an awful lot of electronic ink spilled over this issue, and it doesn't even seem to be happening.


----------



## CABill

The new prices go into effect when DISH generates a new bill after 1-Feb. My bill for 10-Feb thru 9-Mar will be generated 23-Jan and will have the old rates, eventhough it covers "new price Feb". Someone whose billing period starts around the 18th of the month and has their bill generated on 1-Feb would be the 1st to see the price hike. If you change something after 31-Jan, you will see new prices for a partial month before a bill is cut. At least that's how it has worked in past years.


----------



## jrb531

You would think they would have to announce the price change rather than just raise our bills.

Yes I'm sure they have some fine print somewhere that says they can do anything they want.

I'd like to see the new prices on Dish's web page.

Maybe I'll go check now 

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Technically speaking, I believe the terms of service say something like "prices subject to change without notice". Most contracts say something like that. So people who aren't paying a year in advance or locked into one of the price-guaranteed packages have no leg to stand on really when a price increase comes.

That said, it would be nice if price increases were officially announced by companies before they take effect.

'Course it could be worse... Bellsouth has a neat trick where they sometimes lower package prices for things like DSL... BUT they will not lower your price automatically, and they don't make a big deal out of advertising... so you have to find out the new price and then call them and make them change your account to the lower price.


----------



## James Long

It is likely that one will get a mailing (perhaps with a PPV coupon) one month before one gets the bill with the higher rates. That generally happens.


----------



## BillJ

My fuzzy memory recalls getting a letter from E* in the past annoucing price increases. I recall laughing because I was on annual billing which renewed in November and the price increases usually took effect in February so I got several more months at the old rate. Of course with the Platinum HD package my annual billing went away, as the Platinum HD pak apparently will after less than a year.


----------



## Paul Secic

CABill said:


> Actually, I think you are still a little early.  I've not seen any actual "announcement" from DISH for the new prices. The 1st post came from leaks about the info disclosed on the Retailer Chat. It is likely spot on, but I never saw a "press release" in http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-news or anything on their website about pricing.
> 
> My UNinformed opinion is you should be able to drop AT60 (AT100 then) for just GW and DishHD. That is certainly what the 1st post implies. Same for a DISHLation subscriber. But reading the 1st post also implies DishFAMILY is a Basic Package that could add DishHD's HD Pack for $20. I've seen several posts saying that won't be possible. You can't do it before 1-Feb, so wait to see what they say then.


I E-mailed [email protected] to ask how much would I'd pay for AT100 + HBO + STARZ and the man had no idea. So the suits haven't told CSRs.


----------



## Freckles

James Long said:


> It is likely that one will get a mailing (perhaps with a PPV coupon) one month before one gets the bill with the higher rates. That generally happens.


I signed a two year contract and have had my rates increase twice with no notice. I guess the contract doesn't mean they can't raise the rates, just that I have to maintain a minimum package level. But my phone company also raised the rates on my two land lines with no notice...I called them and they basically told me "that's what it costs now."

So nice to know you always have at least two choices, Take it or Leave it...

My greatest source of dissatisfaction with Dish is that I cannot lease enough HD receivers to watch HD in all the rooms. That means the HD Pak I subscribe to can't be viewed in the rooms with no HD receiver. I think I'll watch the current program in the other room while I work at the desk and then remember that I *can't* watch that program there.

With the increased cost of fuel, labor, and insurance I think we'll see price increases in most arenas, not just satellite and cable providers.


----------



## CABill

Paul Secic said:


> I E-mailed [email protected] to ask how much would I'd pay for AT100 + HBO + STARZ and the man had no idea. So the suits haven't told CSRs.


The "Executive Communications" (whatever their title is) should have a little more advance notice than phone call CSRs. But they probably aren't to give out specifics until the price change goes into effect. I can call a CSR now and ask ATxxx questions and they are aware of the price changes. I call and ask about DishDVR Advantage and I'm always told to wait until 1-Feb.

The only time I've received "advance" notice from DISH about price increases is for annual subscriptions. Some month-to-month price increases have come only in the form of an insert into the bill that includes the price increase. The other month-mo-month increases have had no notification at all, unless one notices the increased line items on the bill.

DISH having no "official announcement" nor any mention of price increases or changes prior to the effective date of the change has been my usual experience. My annual subscription increase letter is just notice that I'll now be paying the rate that has been in effect since the previous 1-Feb. Price increases are leaked to Retailers in late Dec or early Jan, but nothing changes on the website until 1-Feb, and CSRs can suddenly answer questions they couldn't before. Lots of different answers are available initially of course.

There won't be any price change for AT100 (60) or HBO itself, but they are both available NOW for an annual subscription at $330 and $165. I don't think "two premiums" are available for an annual (of course, I've never tried either). The "two premiums for $20" are supposed to go to $22 IIRC.


----------



## CABill

Freckles said:


> My greatest source of dissatisfaction with Dish is that I cannot lease enough HD receivers to watch HD in all the rooms. That means the HD Pak I subscribe to can't be viewed in the rooms with no HD receiver. I think I'll watch the current program in the other room while I work at the desk and then remember that I *can't* watch that program there.


If you are willing to spend $200 to get a 2nd 622, I don't recall anybody actually being declined after sending an email to the CEO address. If you ran up against the 4 leased tuner limit, that route might also work to get a 211 if you don't already have 4 receivers on the account.

If you presently do have a 622, did you not run coax from its Home Distribution connection to the other rooms? You can watch its TV1 and TV2 from the other rooms.


----------



## killzone

CABill said:


> If you presently do have a 622, did you not run coax from its Home Distribution connection to the other rooms? You can watch its TV1 and TV2 from the other rooms.


The 2nd output form a 622 is SD only. Like he says, why pay $20 and only be able to watch HD content in 1 room. He could of course purchase a 2nd 622. Still you have to wonder why they have such a limitation in the first place. Is it unreasonable to assume people might have more than 1 HD set?


----------



## Mikey

killzone said:


> The 2nd output form a 622 is SD only. Like he says, why pay $20 and only be able to watch HD content in 1 room. He could of course purchase a 2nd 622. Still you have to wonder why they have such a limitation in the first place. Is it unreasonable to assume people might have more than 1 HD set?


Not at all. Dishn-it-up has a three tuner limitation, so you could possibly get a 622 and 211 one year, and another 211 the next year.

Right now I have a 211 and two 811s. I got the 211 through DIU last Feb., and I'll probably trade an 811 for a 622 next month if the $199 upgrade fee goes away, and maybe another 211 at the same time.


----------



## CABill

killzone said:


> The 2nd output form a 622 is SD only. Like he says, why pay $20 and only be able to watch HD content in 1 room. He could of course purchase a 2nd 622. Still you have to wonder why they have such a limitation in the first place. Is it unreasonable to assume people might have more than 1 HD set?


But that wasn't what he said. He actually said


Freckles said:


> That means the HD Pak I subscribe to can't be viewed in the rooms with no HD receiver. I think I'll watch the current program in the other room while I work at the desk and then remember that I can't watch that program there.


Those channels can be viewed in rooms without an HD receiver. Not in HD if you use the TV2 output from the 622, but I can watch the HD channels in the garage as well as the bedrooms. There isn't a limitation of a single HD receiver, and plenty of people have more than one 622. Some have multiple leased 622s.


----------



## jrb531

Well I did it...

Old Bill:

Dish Silver/locals: $64.99
DVR Fee: $5.98
Lease 622: $6.00
Total: $76.97

New Bill:

Top60: $29.99
DVR fee: $5.98
Lease 622: $6.00
HD Rip Off Fee: $6.00
Locals: $5.00
Total: $52.97

Saved: $24 per month or $27 if you figure in price increase

Once September hits I will be out of my 18 month contract and I will then decide what to do be it staying with Dish, DTV, Cable or FIOS. I might be forced to try Crapcast because that $99 internet, phone, Pay TV is a real sweet deal for at least the first year 

-JB

P.S. India did know about the price increase when I called BTW.


----------



## killzone

CABill said:


> There isn't a limitation of a single HD receiver, and plenty of people have more than one 622. Some have multiple leased 622s.


It must depend on the CSR you get then. When I called they told me I could only lease 1 622, and were baffled by why I would even want more than 1, since it could output to more than 1 tv. They kept asking me how many TV's I had and kept saying that it outputs to 2 tvs. I eventually gave up trying to explain it, and just bought 2 of them from solidsignal.com.


----------



## CABill

killzone said:


> It must depend on the CSR you get then.


You can't reach a CSR at the regular number and get two 622s leased to you, or more than 4 tuners leased. Front line CSRs can't deviate from what appears on their screen. Anybody managing to lease a 2nd 622 has had to do so outside "normal routes". An email to the CEO address has worked for a lot of people to get around various restrictions. A few have done a new subsriber install for just one 622 and after they get their bill, phone and get an existing subscriber DIU 622 with a 2nd install date. Doing it as two installs wouldn't seem to make economic sense, but I'd think most subs with two leased 622s have done it with two installs.

I really doubt you want to go this route now, but there is some plan where you convert a purchased 622 to a leased 622 and get a $270 rebate. There was a thread here in the past week or two of a guy doing just that, but not wanting the DishHD package so he didn't need more than 110 and 119 sats. He was willing to pay the $6 HD Enable fee, but the "regular CSR screens" had trouble with it. It is just geared toward "regular setup" where number of TVs means something like number of tuners.


----------



## CABill

jrb531 said:


> Well I did it...


Thanks for posting your results! I'm curious if they did charge you a $5 downgrade fee.

Since you are out of your contract in Sept, this might not be helpful to extend things, but with AT60 (100) or AT120 (200), you can prepay an annual subscription and get 12 months for the price of 12. That also lets you avoid the $3 increase to AT120 if there were channels you'll miss. You've got ~ a week to do an annual. AT60 doesn't have a price increase coming so the savings aren't great - especially since locals increase from $5 to $5.99 with an annual.


----------



## Freckles

CABill said:


> If you are willing to spend $200 to get a 2nd 622, I don't recall anybody actually being declined after sending an email to the CEO address. If you ran up against the 4 leased tuner limit, that route might also work to get a 211 if you don't already have 4 receivers on the account.
> 
> If you presently do have a 622, did you not run coax from its Home Distribution connection to the other rooms? You can watch its TV1 and TV2 from the other rooms.


Thanks Bill. I still have a 924, 811, and 510. The 924 is Family room/bedroom, the 811 is living room/kitchen, the 510 is bedroom2/office. Living room/kitchen one channel, of course, as is the 510 bedroom2/office. There is a tv everywhere except the bathrooms (pathetic isn't it?). It is annoying to be watching something on one of the HD pak channels and go to another room where that channel is not available. I think I should be able to watch the channels I pay for on all of the receivers. :beatdeadhorse:

I've been postponing an upgrade until the receivers were more stable, more available, and my current contract expires. I don't see any new compelling HD content available yet.


----------



## CABill

Freckles said:


> It is annoying to be watching something on one of the HD pak channels and go to another room where that channel is not available. I think I should be able to watch the channels I pay for on all of the receivers. :beatdeadhorse:


I have a 508 in the bedroom that doesn't get the HD Pak channels, but I also use the 942's TV2 coax to go to EVERY TV in the house. I can watch the HD channels in the bedroom. I can even hit Pause (and start recording if I'd actually been watcing something "live"), go to the bedroom or garage, and pickup right from that point.

I do understand your point about being able to watch the HD channels, but lots of HD receivers are not yet what I need (or want to pay for!). I too haven't upgraded to DishHD. I think the HD Pak is worth $10 to me (MNF in HD) but I'm not sure the Voom channels are worth the $5 I pay. I keep them because I don't think I could add them back if I dropped them.


----------



## JimFunk

Bill,

Any more details about the new subscriber deals in 2/1?


----------



## James Long

Coming soon to advertising near you ...

AT100 $29.99/mo or $19.99/mo new customers (first 10 months)
AT200 $42.99/mo or $32.99/mo new customers (first 10 months)
AT250 $52.99/mo or $42.99/mo new customers (first 10 months)
AEP $89.99/mo or $79.99/mo new customers (first 10 months)
AEP includes 31 commercial free movie channels and NBA TV (Cinemax listed)

DishDVR Advantage $49.99/mo (AT200 + locals + 2 room DVR)
Local Channels - Add $5

"America's Largest HD Lineup"
Add to any qualifying package for $20/mo
Combined packages start at $49.99/mo, plus save $200 with our HD promotional offer. Ask for details.

The Fine Print:


> Programming offers: require participation in Digital Home Advantage. Savings on standard-definition programming requires subscription to a minimum of America's Top 100 package; customer receives one $10.00 credit each month for up to 10 consecutive months. Savings on high-definition programming requires subscription to a minimum of America's Top 100 with DishHD package; customer receives two $10.00 credits each month for up to 10 consecutive months. Customer must mail in redemption form and copy of first bill. Visit www.dishnetwork.com/100back for more information. After 3 free months of qualifying movie package, customer must call to downgrade or then-current price for selected package will apply.
> 
> Digital Home Advantage: Pay $49.99 Activation Fee; receive $49.99 credit on first bill with 18-month qualifying programming purchase (minimum of DishFAMILY). Requires Social Security Number, valid major credit card and credit approval. If qualifying service is terminated prior to end of 18-month period, a cancellation fee equal to the lesser of $240 or $13.33 per cancelled month of service will apply. Equipment must be returned to DISH Network upon termination of qualifying service. Limit 4 tuners per account. Monthly package price includes an equipment rental fee of $5.00 or $6.00 for first receiver, based on selected model. A monthly equipment rental fee of $5.00 or $6.00 will be charged for each receiver beyond the first, based on selected model. A $5.00/mo. additional outlet programming access fee applies for each dual-tuner receiver; fee will be waived monthly for each such receiver continuously connected to Customer's phone line. HD programming requires HD receiver and HD television (sold separately). Customer must subscribe to qualifying HD programming or a $6.00/mo. HD Enabling fee will apply. Lease upgrade fee may apply for a second DVR receiver (based on model).
> 
> DishDVR Advantage: Customer must sign up for Credit Card AutoPay with online billing and be eligible to receive local channels. Discounted price will continue to apply after 18-month commitment unless customer downgrades from qualifying programming (America's Top 200 and local channels), drops Credit Card AutoPay or removes qualifying dual-tuner DVR receiver from account. Then-current prices will apply for all programming and equipment fees.
> 
> Offer ends 5/31/07 and is available in the continental United States for new, first-time DISH Network residential customers. All prices, packages and programming subject to change without notice. Local and state sales taxes may apply. Where applicable, equipment rental fees and programming are taxed separately. All DISH Network programming, and any other services that are provided, are subject to the terms and conditions of the promotional agreement and Residential Customer Agreement, available at www.dishnetwork.com or upon request. Local channels packages by satellite are only available to customers who reside in the specified local Designated Market Area (DMA). Local channels may require an additional dish antenna from DISH Network, installed free of any charges with subscription to local channels at time of initial installation. Social Security Numbers are used to obtain credit scores and will not be released to third parties except for verification and collection purposes only or if required by governmental authorities. All service marks and trademarks belong to their respective owners.


----------



## harsh

killzone said:


> Is it unreasonable to assume people might have more than 1 HD set?


Not at all. At issue is that the HDTVs usually aren't located close enough to each other to cable both via HDMI.


----------



## CABill

James Long said:


> Coming soon to advertising near you ...


The new Ad slicks show the continuing $10 for 10 months for new subs, but I can't find a $100 rebate for "new HD subs" anywhere on retailer in the public section. Nor anything on the "free" 622. Have you come across anything on either? Or existing customer upgrade info? I guess (SPECULATE) if you drop the 622 to $100, it is free to new subs and no net cost difference to existing subs w/o the DishHD rebate??

I'm disappointed that the DishDVR Advantage also seems to only be new subs.

They continue the 3 months of a Premium, but it looks like the literature only shows Starz and Showtime for choices so HBO doesn't get advertised (like Cinemax).


----------



## James Long

I have not seen anything specific on the "free DVR" offer. The new tier chart is available under Q1 but there are no surprises that I have noted. The CourtTV logo is missing from all tiers. The Cinemax logo is present along with the other three premium movie packages under AEP.

Hallmark is still AT250, no logo for Hallmark Movie Channel. No new logos in the HD section (except the four network HD local logos - not sure they were there before).

Practically a thumbnail, but here is a snapshot of the tiers. (The PDF is too big to post.)


----------



## bthessel

So does anyone think it is worth waiting for the Fe. first if I need a second HD receiver? I figure if I email right now I could have a second 622 on lease before the superbowl but if it is going to save me a couple of hundred to wait I will do that.


----------



## jrb531

CABill said:


> Thanks for posting your results! I'm curious if they did charge you a $5 downgrade fee.
> 
> Since you are out of your contract in Sept, this might not be helpful to extend things, but with AT60 (100) or AT120 (200), you can prepay an annual subscription and get 12 months for the price of 12. That also lets you avoid the $3 increase to AT120 if there were channels you'll miss. You've got ~ a week to do an annual. AT60 doesn't have a price increase coming so the savings aren't great - especially since locals increase from $5 to $5.99 with an annual.


She did not mention it and I did not "remind" her LOL.

Will see on my next bill.

-JB

P.S. I'm already taking flak from the family on a few missing channels that "I" never watched but they did. Will see if I can hold out LOL


----------



## CABill

jrb531 said:


> Will see on my next bill.
> ...
> P.S. I'm already taking flak from the family on a few missing channels that "I" never watched but they did. Will see if I can hold out LOL


Oops, I meant to type 12 months for the price of 11. AT60 is $330 and AT120 is $440. When AT120 becomes AT200, it will be $473.

You will find all the various charges that will appear on the next bill in Recent Activity in "My Account" at the website. If it wasn't mentioned, I wouldn't expect it to appear.


----------



## CABill

bthessel said:


> So does anyone think it is worth waiting for the Fe. first if I need a second HD receiver? I figure if I email right now I could have a second 622 on lease before the superbowl but if it is going to save me a couple of hundred to wait I will do that.


An existing subscriber isn't going to save much by waiting, so you might want to Email CEO now if this is a Superbowl goal. Myself, I'll be able to watch it with just a single HD DVR.  You just have to wait out 10 months of $10 rebates with the present offer to make the net cost be $100 for a 622. The only mention of "622 with no up front cost" was for new subscribers. Actual details probably won't appear on www.dishnetwork.com until Feb, so it is mostly think and guess at this point.


----------



## weremichael

I'm sorry to ask this (as I am sure the answer is obvious to most), but can a new subscriber couple the "ten month pricing deals" with the free 622?? The reason why I ask, is the last time I was with Dishnetwork (2001), I bought a 501 and was guaranteed a discount on the dvr and the service and never received the discount on the dvr. It has taken A LOT for me to consider going back with them (I've kept the 501 sitting in its box for over three years) and I don't want to get screwed over again.

Thank you,

Michael


----------



## CABill

weremichael said:


> I don't want to get screwed over again.


The answer certainly isn't obvious to me as there seems to be limited (and sometimes conflicting) info available. I'm pretty sure you will be able to combine the $10 off for 10 months rebate with SOME 622 offer. The only actual info I've seen is the Press Release at http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=948771&highlight= and all you get from that is "free" and "no upfront cost". The cynic in me says that missing from the release could be fine print. Say some $5/month "We gave it to you free and now we will dig it out of you with monthly payments" fee. The to be released advertising does show the $10/month discount combined with a free HD receiver OR with a free DVR upgrade. It doesn't mention HD DVR any place I've found. Maybe someone can post real info - I don't know anything. Ask again on 1-Feb.


----------



## koralis

Apparently there are a FEW a la carte channels available... (though also available at higher tiers.) Most are about $2 per, though babytv is $10. Surprise... guilty parents are easy to milk money out of. 

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/alacarte/index.shtml


----------



## Paul Secic

CABill said:


> The "Executive Communications" (whatever their title is) should have a little more advance notice than phone call CSRs. But they probably aren't to give out specifics until the price change goes into effect. I can call a CSR now and ask ATxxx questions and they are aware of the price changes. I call and ask about DishDVR Advantage and I'm always told to wait until 1-Feb.
> 
> The only time I've received "advance" notice from DISH about price increases is for annual subscriptions. Some month-to-month price increases have come only in the form of an insert into the bill that includes the price increase. The other month-mo-month increases have had no notification at all, unless one notices the increased line items on the bill.
> 
> DISH having no "official announcement" nor any mention of price increases or changes prior to the effective date of the change has been my usual experience. My annual subscription increase letter is just notice that I'll now be paying the rate that has been in effect since the previous 1-Feb. Price increases are leaked to Retailers in late Dec or early Jan, but nothing changes on the website until 1-Feb, and CSRs can suddenly answer questions they couldn't before. Lots of different answers are available initially of course.
> 
> There won't be any price change for AT100 (60) or HBO itself, but they are both available NOW for an annual subscription at $330 and $165. I don't think "two premiums" are available for an annual (of course, I've never tried either). The "two premiums for $20" are supposed to go to $22 IIRC.


How do I get an annual subscription?


----------



## CABill

Paul Secic said:


> How do I get an annual subscription?


Pretty sure this is only by phone. They used to list the annual pricing on the website. They dropped any mention of annual when it wasn't allowed for new DHA lease subscribers. If you are in your 1st 18 months of DHA, it isn't an option AFAIK. What happens after the 18 months isn't clear to me. Only a CSR would know if it is or isn't a choice for each customer. It winds up being 11 times the package price rounded up to even dollars. Annual HBO is $165, AT120 is $440, ...


----------



## bthessel

CABill said:


> An existing subscriber isn't going to save much by waiting, so you might want to Email CEO now if this is a Superbowl goal. Myself, I'll be able to watch it with just a single HD DVR.  You just have to wait out 10 months of $10 rebates with the present offer to make the net cost be $100 for a 622. The only mention of "622 with no up front cost" was for new subscribers. Actual details probably won't appear on www.dishnetwork.com until Feb, so it is mostly think and guess at this point.


Just talked to someone after emailing CEO this afternoon. Wow, they should have these people train the rest of the CSR's. Now that is great service. He told me he could get me a second 622 right now for 199 with no other rebates available. No mention of the $10 over 10 months. He told me that I should wait thought for Feb. 1 and call him back directly. He said he didn't have the details in front of him but he thinks the deal will be 179 for a 622 plus a $50 rebate. I'll wait till next week and report back then.


----------



## Freckles

CABill said:


> I have a 508 in the bedroom that doesn't get the HD Pak channels, but I also use the 942's TV2 coax to go to EVERY TV in the house. I can watch the HD channels in the bedroom. I can even hit Pause (and start recording if I'd actually been watcing something "live"), go to the bedroom or garage, and pickup right from that point.
> 
> I do understand your point about being able to watch the HD channels, but lots of HD receivers are not yet what I need (or want to pay for!). I too haven't upgraded to DishHD. I think the HD Pak is worth $10 to me (MNF in HD) but I'm not sure the Voom channels are worth the $5 I pay. I keep them because I don't think I could add them back if I dropped them.


I may be getting OT, but I would be interested to know if anyone here has tried HD distributed by a Cat 5 system like the one sold at Smarthome. They claim the quality is good. It would be great if it really works, but I haven't seen it in use anywhere. At least I'd have the option to watch HD in more rooms without needing additional receivers.


----------



## GeeWhiz1

bthessel said:


> Just talked to someone after emailing CEO this afternoon. Wow, they should have these people train the rest of the CSR's. Now that is great service. He told me he could get me a second 622 right now for 199 with no other rebates available. No mention of the $10 over 10 months. He told me that I should wait thought for Feb. 1 and call him back directly. He said he didn't have the details in front of him but he thinks the deal will be 179 for a 622 plus a $50 rebate. I'll wait till next week and report back then.


Interesting comments. I emailed the CEO address this weekend to "complain" that I couldn't lease a second receiver in the 12 month period. I got a call back saying that he could authorize it, but I might want to wait until February 1. He wouldn't give me any details either, but hinted that there would be a price drop on the 622 lease cost and some sort of monthly rebate. So I guess that I'll be reporting back here too. :grin:


----------



## mike03038

Dave said:


> As long as we quit gripping about the high cable prices now. It seems that Charlie has finally caught up to them in there pricing structure. It was always going to be to good to last forever. Charlie has given away the company for years to get the company on its feet and running. Free stanard boxes, free PVR boxes, Free HD boxes. Did you really think he could afford to keep giving everything away and not show a profit some day. I for one am surprised it took him this many years to finally put his foot down and say enough is enough all ready. If you don't like paying your fair share, go to cable or an old fashiopned antenna and live with the locals in your area. Some of you got mad at Direct and made the switch when Charlie was smart enough to pick up Zoom and the extra HD channels. Are you going back to Direct because of a price increase? DirectV will be raising there prices considerably next year when there new Sat's come on line with there new HD channels. All the providers can only keep there prices so low for so long without losing money. Also remember some of you get mad when Charlie goes to court or turns off channels because of higher subscriber fees they and all providers have to pay and get new contracts with all the time. Our cost are going to keep going up. I for one would rather have it be 3 to 5 dollars a month, instead of cables rate of 7 to 10 dollars a month with there lacking HD content.
> Think about it for awhile.


Dish wastes all our money in court, or lately from what I have heard chasing folks in Canada. If they would take the millions there spending on dumb crap and offer better packages for cheaper monies than DTV... they could perhaps grab a few of DTV customers and keep them and probably reduce churn.

But will they?? probably not :lol:


----------



## Signaltap2

I need to know all my options outthere, I live in the Boston area and I need to know if the signal is good, I mean real good, around 110-118, Thats what I had last year in Miami, FL before I moved here.

Or should I stick it out with Comcast, which I hate(last 3 months been having bills of $195, $155, $126 with no movies or premium, although got DSL thru them) . They are thieves! Please Help! I have 2 TVs, one of them is HD. Thanks for your reply


----------



## jrb531

Signaltap2 said:


> I need to know all my options outthere, I live in the Boston area and I need to know if the signal is good, I mean real good, around 110-118, Thats what I had last year in Miami, FL before I moved here.
> 
> Or should I stick it out with Comcast, which I hate(last 3 months been having bills of $195, $155, $126 with no movies or premium, although got DSL thru them) . They are thieves! Please Help! I have 2 TVs, one of them is HD. Thanks for your reply


I looked at the Comcast deal of $99 for Cable+Internet+Phone and while I liked the Internet part, the phone at $33 a month is pretty expensive if you do not need all that long distance.

I do not use much, if any, long distance and in fact my local calls are pretty limited. I was able to get my phone bill down to $24 with no extra features so while $33 may be one hell of a deal "if" you use the phone alot I was hoping they had some options for "light" phone users.

It was also interesting to see how crappy the Pay TV package is. You need to add in all sorts of little fees.

Now having said all of this I still think the $99 price is very good... problem is that it's a teaser rate and the real cost will be $130ish after the first 12 months and at $130 it's a rip IMHO.

Cable internet is what I want because AT&T will not upgrade my lines to support anything higher than 1.5 because they are "eventually" doing this FIOS thing and while that will be great it helps me very little right now.

Considering that my only options now is $19.95 for 1.5 or $45 for 6.0 from Comcast... well I'll live with 1.5 

So moving to Dish depends on how much you can get DSL for. If you want to keep Comcast Internet and drop the Pay TV part they will raise your internet bill a ton.

-JB


----------



## minnow

Nothing wrong for taking the subscription for just the length of the teaser rate for one year then reasess your options at that point. And as to the phone being $33 bucks - yeah maybe that's higher than what your paying but the TV and internet are certainly a steal at $33 apiece. So overall one is paying quiet a bit less.


----------



## jonsnow

James Long said:


> Coming soon to advertising near you ...
> 
> AT100 $29.99/mo or $19.99/mo new customers (first 10 months)
> AT200 $42.99/mo or $32.99/mo new customers (first 10 months)
> AT250 $52.99/mo or $42.99/mo new customers (first 10 months)
> AEP $89.99/mo or $79.99/mo new customers (first 10 months)
> AEP includes 31 commercial free movie channels and NBA TV (Cinemax listed)
> 
> The Fine Print:


I really like those prices up untill the 11th month, which is why an at10, at25, and at50 package would make sense to loyal long-term dish customers, tired of this price increase crap.
:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Paul Secic

Signaltap2 said:


> I need to know all my options outthere, I live in the Boston area and I need to know if the signal is good, I mean real good, around 110-118, Thats what I had last year in Miami, FL before I moved here.
> 
> Or should I stick it out with Comcast, which I hate(last 3 months been having bills of $195, $155, $126 with no movies or premium, although got DSL thru them) . They are thieves! Please Help! I have 2 TVs, one of them is HD. Thanks for your reply


QUICK! Run as fast as you can from Comcast. They're rip off artists.


----------



## Slamminc11

Paul Secic said:


> QUICK! Run as fast as you can from Comcast. They're rip off artists.


Comcrap announced this weekend they were upping their rates in Colorado by 4% starting in March.


----------



## koralis

> I need to know all my options outthere, I live in the Boston area and I need to know if the signal is good, I mean real good, around 110-118, Thats what I had last year in Miami, FL before I moved here.


The signals are really good. I live about 30 miles out and the only one I ever have any problems with is Fox during bad weather (it had been about 80 on a good day... it's now over 100.)


----------



## Paul Secic

Slamminc11 said:


> Comcrap announced this weekend they were upping their rates in Colorado by 4% starting in March.


In San Francisco Bay Area Comcast raised rates by 6%.


----------



## ronimous

Hi, first post here. I've lurked for a while, but a recent discussion with customer service yielded some info I figured I should post.

A couple weeks back I called in to Dish and did the whole "I want to cancel my service" thing. The rep transfered me to a different department, the new rep told me that they considered me a "5-Star customer". (I've had the America's Everything package for 7 years.) 

I told her I recently bought an HDTV and that I wanted HD content and that Directv was offering to set me up with the entire system for free. Including the DVR. She said she could cancel for me right away, or I could wait until February for some better deals. I asked what they were and she told me I could get the 622 for $49.99, and that was the best they could do and that would be the price for "5-Star customers". The price would escalate to $99 for "4-Star customers" and so on. 

She said to call back on Feb. 1st and request the deal. I might call at midnight tonight and see what happens.


----------



## Paul Secic

ronimous said:


> Hi, first post here. I've lurked for a while, but a recent discussion with customer service yielded some info I figured I should post.
> 
> A couple weeks back I called in to Dish and did the whole "I want to cancel my service" thing. The rep transfered me to a different department, the new rep told me that they considered me a "5-Star customer". (I've had the America's Everything package for 7 years.)
> 
> I told her I recently bought an HDTV and that I wanted HD content and that Directv was offering to set me up with the entire system for free. Including the DVR. She said she could cancel for me right away, or I could wait until February for some better deals. I asked what they were and she told me I could get the 622 for $49.99, and that was the best they could do and that would be the price for "5-Star customers". The price would escalate to $99 for "4-Star customers" and so on.
> 
> She said to call back on Feb. 1st and request the deal. I might call at midnight tonight and see what happens.


Directv just has a few HD channels.


----------



## i_mobile

Just wanted to relay the information I got when I called today. Long waiting time and the CSR mentioned their systems were running really slow due to the flood of calls inquiring about the new offerings.

I am a current sub with a leased 942 and an owned 811, with AEP + old HD pack (the $9.99 one). This is what I was offered:

942 -> 622, $149 upfront, $50 instant credit, $10 off programming for 10 months after mail-in rebate, $6 lease fee

811 -> 211, $99 upfront, $50 instant credit, $5 lease fee

Installation of new dish and receivers included in the quoted price.

18-month commitment and credit card autopay required; cancellation fee of $13.33/mo for the remaining part of the contract.

So, as far as programming, I would be looking into:

Current:

AEP with locals $89.99
Old HD pack $9.99
Lease fee $5.00

Total $ 105

New:

AEP with locals + new HD pack $109.99
Lease fees $11.00

Total: $ 121


----------



## CABill

i_mobile said:


> New:
> 
> AEP with locals + new HD pack $109.99
> Lease fees $11.00
> 
> Total: $ 121


It is only a buck, but don't be stressed if the New lease fees turn out to be $12 / $122 for two ViP receivers. A ViP is $6 and everything else is $5. The $11 / $121 would be correct if you add the 622 ($6) and keep the 942 ($5). $6 / $116 if you add the 622 but only keep the 811. Neither of those would get MPEG4 (local HD and others) on the receiver you keep. It may not make sense, but the monthly fees would be the same $12 / $122 if you keep the 811 but add both the 622 and 211. They might add some install $ to such a combo though.


----------



## DoyleS

I was on the annual subscription plan for Top 180 which saves me essentially 1 month. My renewal time is Jan 23 so by allowing my annual renewal charge, I get another year of Top180 at last years prices. However, I was on the $9.99 HD plan with the $5 Voom and the HD enabling fee for a total of $21 for HD but not getting all of the HD channels. Today I called in and was able to switch that the the new HD package for $20 a month saving a dollar over my previous cost and getting the additional HD channels. Thanks to CABill who walked me through the strategy a couple weeks ago, it worked great. Initially the CSR wanted to move me to monthly which would have lost my yearly discount. I told her that they had already taken than money out of my credit card and she went away for about 5 minutes and came back and said I was correct and she got everything updated. It was interesting that although I had HD and a 622 they did not think I had the 129 sat. They had me down for 148 which I previously had but the installer turned that dish to 129. Once that was corrected in the system she was able to activate the other HD channels. 

As a side note, I mentioned I was having problems with one of my 508s and asked her if I added The DHPP maintenance plan if I could use that to fix a receiver that had problems and if there was any waiting period after starting that. She said as soon as you activate DHPP, you are good to have your receiver repaired whether it is owned or leased. 


..Doyle... A Satisfied Dish Customer!


----------



## ehren

I tried getting the standalone HD pak and Dish had no idea what I was talking about. 29.99+6 dollar HD enabling fee correct? What is Dish' problem!


----------



## TNGTony

I think the problem is that this stand-alone package is gone. I think it is only available to current HD-only subscribers now.

Tony


----------



## ehren

Well I had to upgrade to bronze when I got the 211, so I am confused now, I used to have the standalone HDpak+ voom package.


----------



## harsh

i_mobile said:


> Lease fees $11.00


Since when do you pay "the fee" on the first receiver?


----------



## harsh

ehren said:


> Well I had to upgrade to bronze when I got the 211, so I am confused now, I used to have the standalone HDpak+ voom package.


Your monthly price may or may not have gone up. It doesn't matter what you had before DishHD.

I'd be looking for a rate change equivalent to that of the AT60/100 package.


----------



## CABill

harsh said:


> Since when do you pay "the fee" on the first receiver?


When the 1st receiver is a DIU upgrade. He was replacing "both" with ViPs and it should have been $12. If he kept the owned 811, IT would have no fee. He said the 942 was leased, so it would be a DIU itself. Stupid rule if you ask me, but a revenue source.


----------



## DoyleS

I am not sure what you mean when you say "Stand Alone HD Pak". As of Feb 1 there is one HD Pak and it is $20 when subscribed with any of the qualifying packages. (Everything, Top 250, Top 200 or Top 100). If you are not subscribing to one of these qualifying packages I think the $20 deal is probably off the table. If you were subscribed to one of the previous deals it should be grandfathered until you change. 

..Doyle


----------



## TNGTony

ehren said:


> Well I had to upgrade to bronze when I got the 211, so I am confused now, I used to have the standalone HDpak+ voom package.


If you went with the lease deal, one of the requirements is to have at least "bronze HD" (Now AT100+HD) That is probably why you had to upgrade your package.

See ya
Tony


----------



## JimFunk

I'm confused as hell. So if I was a new customer, what kind of deal can i get? I want the 622.


----------



## harsh

JimFunk said:


> I'm confused as hell. So if I was a new customer, what kind of deal can i get? I want the 622.


I'd be confused too, if I hadn't read the earlier messages in the thread.

If you were a never before Dish Network customer, you could get into a ViP622 and all the support goodies for an 18 month commitment. There might be some sort of initiation fee that is later credited.

If you aren't a never before customer, the deal is much different.


----------



## ehren

TNGTony said:


> If you went with the lease deal, one of the requirements is to have at least "bronze HD" (Now AT100+HD) That is probably why you had to upgrade your package.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


Tony I am not part of a committment, I bought my 211.

I wanted to get a 622 but for $149 I am not committing to 18 months of service hell no!


----------



## jbennett

ehren said:


> I wanted to get a 622 but for $149 I am not committing to 18 months of service hell no!


Much as I also dislike the idea of a lengthy service commitment, keep in mind the actual terms of the deal. You're basically just agreeing to pay a "penalty" of $13.33 for each month you leave "early" (i.e., before 18 months). So in reality, you break even (and recoup the "free" $149 upgrade) after less than 7 months. (18-7=11, 11*$13.33=$146.63 penalty for cancelling 11 months early.)

This may not matter to you, but to me, knowing I'll break even after only 7 months makes their so-called "18-month commitment" a lot more palatable...

--John


----------



## CABill

TNGTony said:


> If you went with the lease deal, one of the requirements is to have at least "bronze HD" (Now AT100+HD) That is probably why you had to upgrade your package.


It was never a requirement to have a metallic package to lease a ViP. It isn't a requirement today to subscribe to the $20 DishHD package either. You just pay the $6 HD Enable fee instead.


----------



## INHUMANITY

Has the AT100+HD package actually gone live yet? I quickly scanned through my channels and nothing looks new.

I see that Dish Network finally updated their website and removed any mention of the metallic packages.

I checked the AT100+HD package (I had the Top 60 before) and only see new music channels, but I don't have any of them appearing in my EPG.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/whats_on_dish/programming_packages/at_100/packages.aspx


----------



## TNGTony

The music channels have not been turned on for AT100 subscribers yet. That is the ONLY thing that is new to AT100 other than HHS channel if you have a dish pointed at 61.5° or 148°. AT60 had over 70 channels on it already. The addition of the Muzak channels takes it over 100.

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long

I'm assuming Current went live for AT60/AT100 subs.


----------



## TNGTony

James,

Looks like AT200 and up for Current

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/...ming_packages/channels/index.asp?NetwID=52180

Network: Current TV

Channel Name: CRNTV

Category: GENL ENTERTAINMENT

Satellite: 110

Channel: 196

Transponder: 19

Available in:

AMERICA'S EVERYTHING PAK
AMERICA'S TOP 200
AMERICA'S TOP 250

See ya
Tony


----------



## bthessel

bthessel said:


> Just talked to someone after emailing CEO this afternoon. Wow, they should have these people train the rest of the CSR's. Now that is great service. He told me he could get me a second 622 right now for 199 with no other rebates available. No mention of the $10 over 10 months. He told me that I should wait thought for Feb. 1 and call him back directly. He said he didn't have the details in front of him but he thinks the deal will be 179 for a 622 plus a $50 rebate. I'll wait till next week and report back then.


So the deal I got for a second 622 is $149.00 - $50.00 mail in rebate = $100. My bill also went up $12.00 due to a second DVR fee and a second lease receiver fee.


----------



## James Long

TNGTony said:


> James,
> 
> Looks like AT200 and up for Current
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/...ming_packages/channels/index.asp?NetwID=52180


I guess we can't add that to the PI list then.


----------



## nmetro

I just received by bill including the new increase. Well not only did they raise fees 4% they also raised the equipment warranty coverage from $1.99/month to $5.99/month. So my bill went up from $128 to $142. I have AEP/HD/Locals with a VIP622 and VIP211. By the way, they included a letter mentioning all the channels they added like Reelz, Current, DOC, etc. They also mention the several HD channels they added. They don't mention the channels they dropped. I wonder if they will finally carry Hallmark Movie Channel for AT200 and up? The same goes for the BigTen Network. This new network will be the exclusive location for al lBig Ten sports that are now shown under contract with ESPN+ beginning this fall with football. 

So in the end, my increase was more like 11%. 

Nick

PS They also raised the fees if you do not have the warranty to get a replacement receiver. More and more DISH is looking like a cable company. Remember when DISH was a pleasent alternative to cacble?


----------



## DoyleS

When I talked to a CSR on Feb 1 to change my HD package, I asked about the Warranty. Coverage. I said I had a receiver that was having a problem and if I added warranty could I call and get it fixed. She said as soon as you sign up for it you can call in there is no waiting period. I would assume that you could also cancel it after a month or so once you got your receiver fixed. Has anyone in the group done this??

..Doyle


----------



## ButchDeal

I noticed this page:
/pop_ups/whats_on_dish/programming_packages/dvr_advantage/dvr_advantage.shtml

on the Dish site which clearly states that if you add DishHD for $20 you can then add 
any other premium programming for an additional $10.
I recently upgrade to 622 and have showtime. My bill shows the $20 DishHD pack and
$12.99 for Showtime. 
Did anyone get this deal for the $30 price?


----------



## ButchDeal

URL mentioned above:
http://www.dishnetwork.com/pop_ups/...ng_packages/dvr_advantage/dvr_advantage.shtml


----------



## CABill

That package is specific to the DishDVR Advantage package which only became available 1Feb. If you subscribe to AT200 (minimum DDA), you could call to change to DDA for $49.99 (AT200, Locals, 1 DVR fee) + $20 DishHD + $10 Showtime.


----------



## John79605

I haven't read all 26 pages of this thread, but it seems to me nobody has mentioned the best reason to stay with Dish. Here in West Texas the incumbent cable provider has to be the WORLD'S WORST. It was still Cox Cable when I switched to Dish in 2005. Picture quality was AWFUL. Customer service was AWFUL. Cox sold their West Texas systems to Cebring/Suddenlink but the same people have been there under United Cable and TCI Cable and TCA Cable then Cox so we can be sure the picture quality is still AWFUL and the customer service is still AWFUL. Dish could get so expensive I have to cut back or even disconnect, but I won't EVER go back to cable.


----------



## Robert W

For all the talk of every one b!tches but never does anything about the price increases....well......

I cancelled service completely for my business, and downgraded from everything at home to 250+HD. $130 plus a month for the crap they offer? I don't think so.


----------



## Paul Secic

lamp525 said:


> jrb531 said:
> 
> 
> 
> where or when will someone know about new channels???
> 
> 
> 
> I E-mailed [email protected] & asked if I could downgrade to DishFamily and add HBO & STARZ. So they replied: sure you can, but I got AT 100 because I like Musak. I thought you couldn't do that? Hmm.
Click to expand...


----------



## James Long

You can get HBO and Starz without any other subscription. Why wouldn't you be able to get it with Dish Family.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> You can get HBO and Starz without any other subscription. Why wouldn't you be able to get it with Dish Family.


I'm with Paul... I am surprised they would let you add non-family programming like HBO to the DishFamily package. It seems kind of counter to the point of defining the "family friendly" package in the first place if they would let you add adult content premiums.


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> You can get HBO and Starz without any other subscription. Why wouldn't you be able to get it with Dish Family.


Well HDme, I thought it was wrong because HBO & STARZ/Encore is hardly family faire. I got AT100 because I love Big Band Music. (See Superstation thread.


----------



## ClaudeR

HDMe said:


> It seems kind of counter to the point of defining the "family friendly" package in the first place if they would let you add adult content premiums.


I often wonder why Cartoon Network isn't family friendly - must be all the graphic violence.:scratch:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ClaudeR said:


> I often wonder why Cartoon Network isn't family friendly - must be all the graphic violence.:scratch:


The Adult Swim lineup alone takes Cartoon Network out of the family category.


----------



## Cocoatreat

ok,ok.....we got a price increase......thats just how it goes........everything goes up! the h2o, electricity, gas! it all goes up.....nothing stays the same....i started with dish in '87 when echostar had the big dishes....... i moved to miami in '95 ..the cable service was pretty expensive for what i was given at the time... i was paying $67/mo and it was everything & just two premiums (HBO & Showtime). ahd yes it was just 1 HBO & 1 showtime......this was in '97....i was certainly fed up with that......cable went up almost every 6 months....it sucked! on top of that the service was constantly going out (at least 3-5 times/mo). 

overall, i have been quite satisfied with e*. they really havent gone up- compared to everyone else. say what u like...e* still has been a better value imho. i have aep..with no HD(501 & 510). i am planning on getting a new HDTV in a few days. not sure if i will get the new 622... havent decided yet.....but i will hook up ota... for me i just dont think they have enough programming in hd yet. for me, my luxury is my dish. i save my money by making (& roasting my own beans) my coffee at home. i have a hybrid thats paid for! so i average about $50/mo in gasoline now! and get this....i live within my means! i'm not into netflix or blockbuster..as everything seems to get on one of the premiums within 6 mos. and honestly....... i probably dont watch movies like i used to....so i guess i could move down to a lower package... but one day i just might want to see a movie! so i will stay where i am...more & more content does get added to the tiers....so i dont mind that.... but i must say.......if $5 or 10 is going to break you, then perhaps you need to give up that $5 latte you buy every day! trust me... most people throw away $5 a day on useless items.....save it for e*! if you want to go to cable, then so be it.....cable will continue to go up & up for less services. for me the only thing worthy on cable is vod......sameday satellite will be able to compete in that market (i can wait!) as for d* ........those that want to switch, just do it..... later you will find that you have made a mistake....d* has more sports content..but it has always been more expensive....and i have found that overall, most people have been more satisfied with e*. for some reason, d* has reciever issues..(specially with HD). whatever the reason...a lot of people on here seem to be whining about these price increases.........in all of my years i have never seen anything stay the same price..... lets see..........stamps, the telephone, salons-haircuts, etc. so the point is......its bound to happen-- get used to it~!


----------



## linuxworks

Cocoatreat said:


> ok,ok.....we got a price increase......thats just how it goes........everything goes up! the h2o, electricity, gas! it all goes up.....nothing stays the same..


one thing stays the same.

my salary.

(grin).

or is that a frown. not even sure anymore..

seriously, though - the costs of living (the rate) is higher than the salary rate, overall. this isn't a good thing, of course..


----------



## ClaudeR

linuxworks said:


> one thing stays the same.
> my salary.


Yeah, throw a 20% health insurace increase on that, along with the doubled energy costs, and we simply can't keep up. You've got to start cutting back. I recently dropped down to the basic 256K cable broadband to save $17 a month. I'd drop to the family package if I could satisfy the family. No need for sports or premium channels.

Don't forget, it used to be several years between satellite increases, now it seems like every year. OUCH.


----------



## Paul Secic

Paul Secic said:


> Well HDme, I thought it was wrong because HBO & STARZ/Encore is hardly family faire. I got AT100 because I love Big Band Music. (See Superstation thread.


I just switch back to AT 250 and dropped STARS because you only get the east coast feed of Encore. The only way to get all off themed Encore channels is through AT 250. Plus you get TMC-E & TMC-W.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Paul Secic said:


> I just switch back to AT 250 and dropped STARS because you only get the east coast feed of Enore. The only way to get all off themed Encore channels is through AT 250. Plus you get TMC-E & TMC-W.


It is a weird thing to only be able to get some of those in the AT250... I would have thought you could buy Encore and get them all, but I was pretty sure I remembered looking before and some channels were only in the AT250 pack. Strange, but one of the reasons why I stick with AT250 too.


----------



## Paul Secic

HDMe said:


> It is a weird thing to only be able to get some of those in the AT250... I would have thought you could buy Encore and get them all, but I was pretty sure I remembered looking before and some channels were only in the AT250 pack. Strange, but one of the reasons why I stick with AT250 too.


I guess charlie must have made some special clauses with Liberty Media & Viacom to get those Pay movie channels in a program package. That's why I like Charle, he's a maverick.


----------



## TNGTony

Paul Secic said:


> I just switch back to AT 250 and dropped STARS because you only get the east coast feed of Encore. The only way to get all off themed Encore channels is through AT 250. Plus you get TMC-E & TMC-W.


Encore West, Westerns, Mysteries, Love and Action are available in the Encore Movie Pack for $4.99 added to AT100 or AT200.  Not all the encores, but unless you REALLY like WAM and "The Movie Channel" you could save 5 bucks. 

See ya
Tony


----------



## Paul Secic

TNGTony said:


> Encore West, Westerns, Mysteries, Love and Action are available in the Encore Movie Pack for $4.99 added to AT100 or AT200.  Not all the encores, but unless you REALLY like WAM and "The Movie Channel" you could save 5 bucks.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


I downgraded to AT 100 + STARZ and got "only" got Encore East, but the people who live with me got mad, because their favorite channels wern't in AT 100. The bottom line: AT 250 is the best value!


----------



## Link

Our local cable company didn't raise rates this year. Usually they do this time of year, but if they do they add a few channels. It is usually a $1 or $2, not $3.00. The premium channel bundles actually save money along with Internet.


----------

