# HD Extra Pack: If There Is No Grandfathering



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Will you pay?

Edited to say

MHD
Discovery HD Theater
Universal HD
HDNet
HDNet Movies
Smithsonian HD
MGM HD


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Most definently.... Another $4.99 on top of my already $120ish bill or so...

$60 a year, for the 6 channels... which actually have a LOT of content that I do want to watch.... 

Yes, I will pay...... I've been paying $10 for nearly 3+ years now, for what 6-9 channels over that time....


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

I voted no, as I think much of the programming will be available on other HD Networks coming on line.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

Yep, they just happen to be channels I'll watch, and it's still less than what E* charges for their HD package.


----------



## Guitar Hero (Dec 13, 2005)

Nope. I wont have access to the new HD channels, since D* wont come out and realign my dish since my TP signal levels for 103b are too low to receive anything.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

I will subscribe, however after paying $9.99 for the limited package this will be another black eye for Directv and will put me one step closer to moving to Dish.

PS I was originally promised HD locals by the end of 06. I am now being told by a CSR that it will be end of 08.


----------



## mcbeevee (Sep 18, 2006)

Thought D* should have "grandfathered" us for at least 6 months. Guess they know people like me will pay the extra amount anyway.


----------



## mrjim (Dec 4, 2006)

I am willing to fork over another $4.99, the more channels in HD the better!


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Universal, HDnet Movies, and MGM Movie for uncut/uninterrupted movies is a far better deal at $4.99 that Skinamax at $11.99


----------



## dvelleco (Oct 26, 2006)

Yes, I would for $4.99/mo. Seems like a decent deal because I do enjoy a lot of the HD content they show on those channels. Besides...we even get a few months grandfathered in for free and I'm already paying $10. So for basically $15, I'm going to get what I get now, plus a whole boat load of new HD.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

HDNet Thursday and Saturday night NHL. Plus there's always the new Smithsonian Channel which looks sweet!


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

My "No" is qualified. I will really miss NHL and MLS on HDNET, but if I am getting the Isles on NHLCI in HD, I can get by. However, I will have to wait until I see the new unique HD stations in action before I decide for certain. I'm already paying an obscene amount of money for TV, so I am reluctant to pay for more...


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

I will subscribe because it has the Smithsonian and MGM channels. HDNet Movies are bad PQ so far and as I get the Premier package the movies will be on StarzHD and others too so I wouldnt pay the extra if it wasnt for the two new channels.

But as Earl says - another $5 a month on top of the $120+ I already pay isnt too much. I pay $15 for Setanta sports! Just 1 channel. My choice.

All these people who were complaining about no a la carte programming are the same people complaining that they have to pay extra for these HD Extra pack. Just think of this as an a la carte example. Buy any one of these channels for $4.99 a month and you get 5 free!

As for grandfathering then I think the loyal HD D* subs should have longer free access. Everyone should get it free until Dec15th. Then you should get it free for however long you have had HD access at the $9.99 rate. Me I am a new sub so would get a month or so, but some have paid for a year or two or more and I think D* should give them that year or so free. Just a nice gesture in my opionion without breaking the bank.


----------



## MIAMI1683 (Jul 11, 2007)

Ok so many of us got HD free for a year, so it sahouldn't matter much, but I agree been paying for HD for years and now they will have more channels but will raise the price after they said they wouldn't. I think I would have to call and complain a little, I will pay it but not before letting someone know that I thought it wasn't right. I do believe free HD for a year is free HD. So no sub. for 12 months. Savings $70. If you didn't get it call and get it if you can, but it may be too late.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

Definitely not, but I never watch those channels anyway, so it's a non-issue for me.


----------



## UTVLamented (Oct 18, 2006)

With all of the new HD content I will not have as much need (or time) for these channels, so I will likely not pay for them.


----------



## superfan1 (Sep 12, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> I will subscribe, however after paying $9.99 for the limited package this will be another black eye for Directv and will put me one step closer to moving to Dish.
> 
> PS I was originally promised HD locals by the end of 06. I am now being told by a CSR that it will be end of 08.


I Agree.. If it wasn't for the NFL Ticket I also would be gone and looking at different options.....

The $9.99 charge from my understanding was to be for ALL HD channels. That where previously in whatever pack you had...

Now DirecTV is changing the way they sell these packages.. 
3/4 of the channels aren't even available in HD and the price is already $14.98 plus tax in some areas)..

If this price increase is the only one for the next year then I would consider paying the extra $4.99... Since this cant be guaranteed.... I would have to say NO for now....


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

I voted no, UHD is the channel I watch the most and with the Universal properties (USA, Sci-Fi) coming in HD there is no need for it. 

HDNet is good when you first get HD and go WOW!, but I found the content to be lacking, although I do record the late version of Art Mann Presents every Friday night. 

I can only watch Top Gun on HDNet Movies so many times.

Discovery Theater seems redundant with the simulcast Discovery coming.


----------



## digibob (Dec 1, 2005)

At the risk of sounding uninformed, :grin: What channels are the extra $4.99 for?


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

digibob said:


> At the risk of sounding uninformed, :grin: What channels are the extra $4.99 for?


The Extra Pack is the non simultcast channels.

These are the 4 current ones - HDNet, HDNet Movies, Universal and Discovery HD Theatre.

There are then 2 new channels coming which will be in the pack. These are MGM HD and Smithsonian HD.

The 6 channels are reportedly going to be an extra $4.99 a month.

Earl says we will be grandfathered in if you currently have the $9.99 access but no - one knows for how long. There are reports that we get it free until Dec 15th then we all have to pay if you want these 6 channels.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

I'm undecided. Of the 6 I'd really only miss HDNet. I can;t really justify $5/mo for one channel but perhapsthe new ones will be of interest to me too. We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Will you pay?


OP - could you edit your first post to include what the HD Extra Pack includes?


----------



## jburroughs (Jan 13, 2007)

digibob said:


> At the risk of sounding uninformed, :grin: What channels are the extra $4.99 for?


HDNET, HDNET Movies, Universal HD, MGM HD (I think that is all of them)
Which leads me to think, why not grandfather the channels we previously had and make people upgrade to get new channel(s) like MGM?


----------



## cnmsales (Jan 9, 2007)

I will for sure. While i hate to have to pay 5 more dollars I like the current HD channels and will enjoy mgmhd as well. Also isnt MTV's HD channel going to be here as well? As it is not a simulcast of MTV.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

MHD
Discovery HD Theater
Universal HD
HDNet
HDNet Movies
Smithsonian HD
MGM HD

Discovery HD Theater's programming will be available on The Discovery Channel HD, TLC HD, Animal Planet HD, and Discovery Science HD.

MHD's programming will be mirrored on MTV HD, VH1 HD, and CMT HD

Much of Universal HD's programming is found on the various NBC/Universal HD Networks like Bravo, USA, Sci-Fi.

Having the History Channel HD, and the four new Discovery HD networks will cover the educational/documentary programming for me, so Smithsonian isn't something for which I'd pay extra.

HDNet Movies is way to repetitive, and while I occasionally watch a movie there, I get a lot of movies elsewhere, so I won't really miss it. 

I imagine that MGM movies will be much like HDNet's movie channel, repetitive, and only occasionally having an interesting movie that is 10-15-20 years old.

I can't think of anything on HDNet that I watch.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

I voted yes - but with one catch: I'll be dropping programming to make up the cost, and probably will drop one more receiver, too. Hopefully I can still keep all the premium movie channels and come out ahead.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

for me it isn't a matter of the money, i am not going to opt for it based on the fact that i am tired of D* changing their promises. i seem to recall hearing the CSR's say "there will be a difference for the HD users that hang on while our offered HD channels are low", so now that 'difference' appears to be 3 months of programming for free (valued at a whopping $14.97). my monthly bill is already at about $200 and i am standing pat.

to hell with these 6 channels. someone please tell me why we have been paying for the HD package since its inception?

just thought i would add, i have been with D* since 95 or 96 and i have never complained about any of the previous changes. for whatever reason this has just gone too far. so much for "there will not be any price increase directly related to the new HD content". which is now technically true, they are not charging us for the new, they are charging us more for the old. based on the level of distaste shown in this thread, i was not the only one that took their words hook, line and sinker.


----------



## Fuzzybear (Dec 29, 2006)

No doubt, what's another 5 bucks when you send them $120 every month.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Yes I would pay


----------



## JMartinko (Dec 16, 2006)

I voted yes. I watch a LOT of programming on HDNet, HDNet Movies Discovery and Universal and don't think that will change much with the additional channels. I also am looking forward to the Smithsonian Channel. I already have the Premier package, so it does seem like it should be included, but I won't let the $5 make me stop. It's too late for that and I am already in too deep with this stuff to stop now.


----------



## jfuchtm (Aug 22, 2007)

First, I am going to wait and see what we have for HD's by Dec 15th. Then I am going to see what the quality of programing is for the extra 6 or what ever the magic number is by then. I won't buy without knowing what I am getting. As of this time NOTHING has changed from the orginal HD's so why speculate.


----------



## superfan1 (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm surprised that the poll is so close.. To me most Hard Core HD/ DirectTV fans would be the ones answering YES in this poll... 

Its showing more people want DEALS then will just keep paying anything DirecTV ask for... 

That's a good thing IMO...


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

I doubt that I will pay for these there is nothing there that I watch a whole lot of anyways other than Discovery


----------



## NYHeel (Aug 21, 2006)

The only one of those channels I watch is Discovery HD theatre so it depends on what is on each channel with the regular Discovery HD. Just another exmaple of Directv nickle and diming us. I've been paying $10 for almost 2 years solely for the ESPNs and Discovery HD theatre and now they want to charge more. Shocking.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

To me, this is less a $ issue, there is more than enough ways for me to earn these few shekels. But I will be disappointed should this come to pass. I picked up the premium package to get most of the channels and have carried the HD package for since it came out, even tho I felt it was overpriced at the time; I wanted to fund more HD. 

Add to that the earlier announcements of grandfathering for us who have been with DIRECTV HD for more than a week. Will I pay? Perhaps. Would I consider making this be cost neutral for me? Yupper. I might drop the last two non-MPEG4 receivers.

Again, this is more about principle than anything for me.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## AacidusX (Apr 3, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> I will subscribe, however after paying $9.99 for the limited package this will be another black eye for Directv and will put me one step closer to moving to Dish.


+1


----------



## NtegrA (Apr 1, 2007)

Only things I REALLY been watching have been Deadline and Geek to Freak with Dennis Rodman on HDNet.

Not enough to pay extra $5.00 for. Like others have said, I catch an occasional flick on HDNM or UHD.

Damn.. Torchwood is going to be on HDNet, I may have to change my vote (grin).


----------



## left jeff (Jan 30, 2007)

more than likely no.

I'm pretty selective with my "add-ons" and I would rather have something like HBO.

It's a shame because I really like HDNET. But all the reasons I tuned in will pretty much be resolved by the addition of new HD Channels. A big reason I like(d) HDNET was because they showed a variety of programming in HD. Now that I'll have a bunch of channels to choose from, I won't be as reliant on it as before.

I think the Smithsonian Channel looks cool. But with getting National Geographic and the History Channel (plus I already receive PBS ota), is Smithsonian and Discovery Theater really necessary?

I had MHD when I had Charter and it didn't have that much great content. Some concerts were cool though.

I guess what it comes down to is that none of the channels are mandatory for me. I have a passive interest in them and that's it. I'd watch them if they were "free" (included).


----------



## sjniedz (Feb 11, 2006)

I vote no. I have seen my bill go up more than I would like in the last year. If these prices continue I might as well go back to Cox Cable.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Will I pay? Perhaps. Would I consider making this be cost neutral for me? Yupper. I might drop the last two non-MPEG4 receivers.
> 
> Again, this is more about principle than anything for me.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I'm just not a nice person but if I was going to do this I'd be sure to keep a Tivo on my account if i could and it was cost neutral to me. If they are going to suck an extra $5 out of me I'll at least make sure they still have to pay $1.


----------



## pyro383 (Aug 30, 2007)

How can people say its just $5 more a month? For the $10.99 a month that some of us have been paying for years to have the few hd channels to add 6 more will be $5 for a total of $15 is outragious. What happens if there becomes another 5 channels for a cost of $2.99 would you pay that?

When every channel becomes HD will we still be charged a premium? I doubt DTV will lower the overall price.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

superfan1 said:


> I'm surprised that the poll is so close.. To me most Hard Core HD/ DirectTV fans would be the ones answering YES in this poll...
> 
> Its showing more people want DEALS then will just keep paying anything DirecTV ask for...
> 
> That's a good thing IMO...


IMHO.... "DEALS"...

This isn't like the flee-market where should be able to call and set your price...

This is a service, with a fee.... if the fee outweighs your benefit... then ...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Add to that the earlier announcements of grandfathering for us who have been with DIRECTV HD for more than a week.


Not to split hairs... but I don't recall an official announcement from DirecTV...

Most of the "granfathering" claims, came from the un-official internal document, which was later stated (via a rep), was not definite and was subject to change.

The "grandfathering" we were assuming, could be in fact this three month period, no where in the document that was "leaked", did it give a time frame on the legth of the grandfathering...


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

pyro383 said:


> When every channel becomes HD will we still be charged a premium?


based on how they are now breaking out the line items in my 'recent activity', i would say yes D* is attempting to charge a premium for all HD programming. take a look:

09/13/2007 xxxxxxxx0042 Sports HD - Charge $0.00 $0.00 
09/13/2007 xxxxxxxx0042 Cinemax HD - Charge $0.00 $0.00 
09/13/2007 xxxxxxxx0042 Starz HD - Charge $0.00 $0.00 
09/13/2007 xxxxxxxx0042 HD Access $9.99 $0.00

does this mean i will be billed more when i get Starz and Cinemax in HD? i don't know, but it sure looks like a possibility. otherwise, why would they break it out like that?


----------



## john18 (Nov 21, 2006)

I saw this thread and I called D* to ask a question about it, specifically if Premier Pack customers are going to be charged this fee. I was told no. So, if that information is coreect I don't need to vote.


----------



## superfan1 (Sep 12, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> IMHO.... "DEALS"...
> 
> This isn't like the flee-market where should be able to call and set your price...
> 
> This is a service, with a fee.... if the fee outweighs your benefit... then ...


BS!!!! You should set your price.... Its a service that we all CHOSE to use... If a better service comes along at a better price.. Your damn right im going to look into it and possibly change to it...

If nobody buys Directv then they go out of business... We set the price when we chose to pay for whatever service package we get from them.... .....

If you can afford to pay whatever DirecTV ask you and get everything they offer..... good for you.... Most people cant.....


----------



## digibob (Dec 1, 2005)

So now we have to pay for something we already have?  I watch Discovery Theater in HD once in awhile. I still have a few Planet Earths I haven't watched yet. Bikini Destinations on HDNet always looks good in HD as well.  I will have to wait and see in December.:nono2:


----------



## 66stang351 (Aug 10, 2006)

dhines said:


> based on how they are now breaking out the line items in my 'recent activity', i would say yes D* is planning on charging a premium for all HD programming. take a look:
> 
> 09/13/2007 xxxxxxxx0042 Sports HD - Charge $0.00 $0.00
> 09/13/2007 xxxxxxxx0042 Cinemax HD - Charge $0.00 $0.00
> ...


No, the reason they are showing up on your account is just for the initial authorization, because they were not included in your package originally.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not to split hairs... but I don't recall an official announcement from DirecTV...
> 
> Most of the "granfathering" claims, came from the un-official internal document, which was later stated (via a rep), was not definite and was subject to change.
> 
> The "grandfathering" we were assuming, could be in fact this three month period, no where in the document that was "leaked", did it give a time frame on the legth of the grandfathering...


Earl, true .. however, past performance has shown DIRECTV to maintain packages forever .. I would not be surprised if HD access includes all of this batch of channels. It may be that D11 comes around and the "grandfathered" packages do not receive the next round of HD channels at all without changing packages.

But your right about one thing. It's currently all speculation. I think that HD Access will be included for longer than the period noted. We'll have to see what the official stance is as we move into this new era.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

dhines said:


> based on how they are now breaking out the line items in my 'recent activity', i would say yes D* is planning on charging a premium for all HD programming. take a look:
> 
> 09/13/2007 xxxxxxxx0042 Sports HD - Charge $0.00 $0.00
> 09/13/2007 xxxxxxxx0042 Cinemax HD - Charge $0.00 $0.00
> ...


You've got a point there. If this HD Extra Pack is a success, who's to say they won't start charging an extra fee for HD premium channel access. I imagine the people voting yes to this poll would also, say, "It's only another $5 fee...."


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

66stang351 said:


> No, the reason they are showing up on your account is just for the initial authorization, because they were not included in your package originally.


but if (as has been stated in the past) the "HD package is the key to unlocking" the HD versions of the channels that you subscribe to in SD, why the need to show that? wouldn't the access to Starz, Cinemax, etc be implied in the HD package subscription? and if your logic is correct, why isn't there a line item for HBO?

something smells fishy to me . . .


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

A la carte. I'd take HDNet for $1-2, but I don't really feel like paying for the others that I don't care to watch.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Of course I will wait and see, but if I had to pay extra I would. I actually DO seek out new programming in HD just because it's generally a much better entertainment experience than similar stuff in HD, at least to me. And I do watch a LOT of cool HD stuff I'd otherwise never take the time to watch, just because it's HD.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Earl, true .. however, past performance has shown DIRECTV to maintain packages forever .. I would not be surprised if HD access includes all of this batch of channels. It may be that D11 comes around and the "grandfathered" packages do not receive the next round of HD channels at all without changing packages.
> 
> But your right about one thing. It's currently all speculation. I think that HD Access will be included for longer than the period noted. We'll have to see what the official stance is as we move into this new era.


I'd be perfectly fine if i didn't get he NEW channels in the HD extra pack without the $5 fee so long as I continued to get the channels I get now without the new fee too. If i want the new stuff i have to agree to the added $5.


----------



## Mixer (Sep 28, 2006)

I voted no only because currently I can not see the 119. When these channels are ALL on the 99 and 103 I will get them.


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

I will be amazingly PO'd.
If they do that, after getting a two committment from me with out warning I will be quite upset.
As much as I love D*, I'll going to fiber, and keep a single box for NFLST only.
The point here is that when the broadcast standard officially changes to HDTV, will they reduce prices, as the SD channels die off and they can no longer define these as another level of service?
If they don't then it becomes a hidden price increase.


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

Yes, I would pay, BUT I will probably then reduce my package by dropping out of the Premiere pak and downto something less. If they want to start nickel and diming me with these little "extra" fees, then it's time for me to nickel and dime them back.

Basically it will be their choice, either don't charge the extra $5 and I'll leave my package alone OR charge me the $5 and LOSE money when I drop my package down by $10 or more.


----------



## davidrumm (Dec 2, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Earl, true .. however, past performance has shown DIRECTV to maintain packages forever .. I would not be surprised if HD access includes all of this batch of channels. It may be that D11 comes around and the "grandfathered" packages do not receive the next round of HD channels at all without changing packages.


The only thing is that the HD Access package is changing. This would mean that you would have to choose to keep the old HD access and not get the new HD channels or get the New HD channels and therefore not be grandfathered. This is the reason I believe the Legacy HD being grandfathered is the receivers that will not get the MPEG 4. This would be the old package. However to get the new channels you have to have the new package.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

superfan1 said:


> BS!!!! You should set your price.... Its a service that we all CHOSE to use... If a better service comes along at a better price.. Your damn right im going to look into it and possibly change to it...
> 
> If nobody buys Directv then they go out of business... We set the price when we chose to pay for whatever service package we get from them.... .....
> 
> If you can afford to pay whatever DirecTV ask you and get everything they offer..... good for you.... Most people cant.....


So you call the Gas Company to negotiate your rate?
Or call your Cell Phone Company to negotiate your rate?

You most definently can call and set your "personal" rate, on what you set for your value on your entertainment needs....

But negotiating your price with a particular carrier/service?


----------



## dogs31 (Feb 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So you call the Gas Company to negotiate your rate?
> Or call your Cell Phone Company to negotiate your rate?
> 
> You most definently can call and set your "personal" rate, on what you set for your value on your entertainment needs....
> ...


Earl,

How 'bout' if one has the Directv Plus HD/DVR package? Will we still be able to get the six channels.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

There seems to be two arguments here.

Some are complaining that they have paid $10 for the small number of channels and so want to be grandfathered in on the new pack for free. Whether that is for a time period or until they change their package. I think we should be grandfathered in.

There are then others who are complaining that D* shouldnt charge extra for the pack to anyone (including new subs). That I dont agree with. $15 for all HD Channels is still cheaper than most if not all other providers. Also you have the choice (IIRC you dont with E* - $20 or nothing). D* can put any package together they like.

As Earl says you dont set your price with the cell phone company. They have packages and you choose them. I have a similar situation with my cell company about broadband access tethering - but i have to pay the extra if i want it.

To the other poster about the Starz HD charges etc. This is because they are premium channels and so have to be authorized seperately on your (and mine) account. Otherwise non Starz subs with HD Access will have it. The receiver has to authorize it. D* has two choices they can say "if account has hd access AND account has starz sub then activate channel" or they can say "if account has starzhd then activate channel" the second one is quicker for your receivers and so you can tune to the channel quicker - which i am sure you would like. There is also less chance of something going wrong.


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

It's a win, win situation for DirecTV. You already have 120 people saying that they will pay $5 more for the channels. That will be $600 more than $0 now. Those of us that will not pay, they lose nothing on.


----------



## superfan1 (Sep 12, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So you call the Gas Company to negotiate your rate?
> Or call your Cell Phone Company to negotiate your rate?
> 
> You most definently can call and set your "personal" rate, on what you set for your value on your entertainment needs....
> ...


Like most people who have common sense ... I go to whatever is offering the best rate and service... If I stay with a carrier.. I ask "what can you do for me to make my experience better?".. I don't just continue to pay for a particular service every time they make rate changes....

If I choose to stay with a particular service its because there is nothing better out there that is worth my time/money to change to IMO.....


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

F1 Fan said:


> To the other poster about the Starz HD charges etc. This is because they are premium channels and so have to be authorized seperately on your (and mine) account. Otherwise non Starz subs with HD Access will have it. The receiver has to authorize it. D* has two choices they can say "if account has hd access AND account has starz sub then activate channel" or they can say "if account has starzhd then activate channel" the second one is quicker for your receivers and so you can tune to the channel quicker - which i am sure you would like. There is also less chance of something going wrong.


that makes sense to me, but as i stated previously . . . why wouldn't HBO have a corresponding line item? or, are you saying that i will only see that line item on the initial month?


----------



## bobojay (Jan 26, 2004)

I don't agree with NOT grandfathering because we've been paying the $9.99 for over a year now for very little content.
However after thinking about it, we'd probably go for the $4.99 and just cancel HBO & Max because we rarely watch them now that the Sopranos & Deadwood are gone. Those are all we ever watched on them anyway. Very rarely a movie. Once a month maybe on one or the other......
I'm still hoping to see TCM come up in HD soon also.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

superfan1 said:


> Like most people who have common scene... I go to whatever is offering the best rate and service... If I stay with a carrier.. I ask "what can you do for me to make my experience better?".. I don't just continue to pay for a particular service every time they make rate changes....


So... you are saying that I don't have any common sense, (or scene)... because I want to look at the bigger picture, and the value of what I pay for.
So your experience is totally based on the bottom $$$ line...

I could probably switch to Comcast for a little less money...
But the amount I pay on my bill, is the big picture.

I spent 30 minutes on my in-laws digital box yesterday... and it re-affirmed why I don't consider COMCAST for my personal usage.

Each person is different I guess...

Just like I have saved about $15 a month by switching to Vonage... and now that my 1yr is up... I am going back to a landline.
As the few frustrations that I have had with them... and some of the quality at times... just doesn't = the $15 savings...


----------



## ddrumman2004 (Mar 28, 2007)

I voted "no" because I don't pay the bill.....my girlfriend does. Comes out of her bank account every month like clockwork. She's not too happy about a price increase and this from a woman who watches very little HD programming.

I watch a few movies on HDNet if they interest me and every so often something Discovery HD Theater will catch my eye. 

But she will no doubt pay the extra when the time comes and fuss about it at the same time.


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

swans said:


> It's a win, win situation for DirecTV. You already have 120 people saying that they will pay $5 more for the channels. That will be $600 more than $0 now. Those of us that will not pay, they lose nothing on.


Except the extreme people who will stop paying their $120 a month to D* and take their business elsewhere. If 120 people do that D* loses $14,400 to a competitor, that $600 gained doesn't seem so good to me.


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

I don't mind it these are extra channels that we had been paying 9.99 for and 10.99 before that. It doesn't feel fair but it's not the huge issue it is being made out to be. It would be nice if they added more original HD only channels i.e. mojo, wealth, the vooms. 10 plus channels for 4.99 would represent a good value. I'm sure they will treat it like they did the total choice when it started; $5 and 13 channels, then they lowered the price and added more channels. It is a better value now then it was originally. Just think of it as 4.99 for 4 HD movie channels each with different content, sound like a much better DEAL than say 3 cinemax channels.


----------



## spoonman (Feb 21, 2007)

superfan1 said:


> BS!!!! You should set your price.... Its a service that we all CHOSE to use... If a better service comes along at a better price.. Your damn right im going to look into it and possibly change to it...
> 
> If nobody buys Directv then they go out of business... We set the price when we chose to pay for whatever service package we get from them.... .....
> 
> If you can afford to pay whatever DirecTV ask you and get everything they offer..... good for you.... Most people cant.....


When I had cable they charged $5 just for Discovery HD Theater.


----------



## bakers12 (May 29, 2007)

We probably won't pay the extra if asked to. If we find out that we can't get along without HDNet or Discovery HD Theater, we'll reconsider. But there is the spite factor in that we won't pay up just because D* says to.

We get the Plus HD DVR package now. If we have to pay to keep channels, it will create some anger here.


----------



## superfan1 (Sep 12, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So your experience is based on the $$$
> 
> I could probably switch to Comcast for a little less money...
> But the amount I pay on my bill, is the big picture.
> ...


Its about choice & Money... If there is something better out there or it can be offered I'm going for it..... 
IMO It defiantly doesn't hurt to ask "What can you do for me?" 
Before just paying for it... We are the customer after all.....


----------



## jlangner (Feb 3, 2007)

nope


----------



## ctwilliams (Aug 25, 2006)

Mixer said:


> I voted no only because currently I can not see the 119. When these channels are ALL on the 99 and 103 I will get them.


I voted no as well. I am in the same boat as you, I only get 119 in the fall and winter. If they move ESPN2 and HDNET over to another satellite, then I will vote maybe.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not to split hairs... but I don't recall an official announcement from DirecTV...
> 
> Most of the "granfathering" claims, came from the un-official internal document, which was later stated (via a rep), was not definite and was subject to change.
> 
> The "grandfathering" we were assuming, could be in fact this three month period, no where in the document that was "leaked", did it give a time frame on the legth of the grandfathering...


Not to accuse DTV of fraud, but if they know that this is going to be their price structure, then why is it not disclosed on their HD FAQ, and why does that same FAQ mislead customers by telling them that the cost or receiving *ALL* HD channels will not be increased above the $9.99 HD access fee? Regardless of their blanket disclosure that all prices are subject to change without notice, if they know that the price is going up, it's wrong to be telling us that prices HD prices won't be increased when they add new channels and lying about this price increase that they plan to roll out with the new HD channels.

Also Earl, stop with this bullsh*t about "3 month grandfathering". That's not grandfathering.... that's a limited time free preview, and you know it, and you lose credibility here when you try to sell the lie that a limited free preview is "grandfathering".


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

bakers12 said:


> We probably won't pay the extra if asked to. If we find out that we can't get along without HDNet or Discovery HD Theater, we'll reconsider. But there is the spite factor in that we won't pay up just because D* says to.
> 
> We get the Plus HD DVR package now. If we have to pay to keep channels, it will create some anger here.


Guess that will be the Minus HD DVR package soon.


----------



## bakers12 (May 29, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


> Guess that will be the Minus HD DVR package soon.


I'm hoping the plusses of USA HD, Sci-Fi HD, etc. outweigh the minusses.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

I voted no but my real question is why are they even making this little package? why not just wait for a few months and up the HD package to 15 and have them stay all as 1 package? Doing it this way just makes for a lot of confusion...


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Of course. And it hurts me to say that.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Which FAQ... the new one, or the old one?

How about they announce the pricing structure after the channels are out, and they are done defining it...

Has it been officially stated by DirecTV, in their press releases... what the new pricing structure is? Anywhere... it has all be conjecture by forums, and bloggers.

AS for the bs... we know nothing official at this time

Not the December date, not the official pricing structure..
Nothing.

As for loosing "credibility"... life's a *****, that I can't make everyone happy...
We know nothing official yet...

The grandfathering could be in fact the "limited" free preview... what ever it may be... we just don't know yet.

All of this "lack" of grandfathering talk, has come from a "email" response, that really can't be verified as all the verifyable components were removed when posted.... from a CSR level...

And all of sudden... because of this topic.. they are 100% reliable again?

Come on...

How about everyone untie their undies that are in a bunch, and see how it plays out... If things change... then you have grounds to leave... and have an argument to not be charged your contract fee..


----------



## jganson (Jan 30, 2007)

I voted yes, but whether I keep that package will depend on how much I end up watching those particular channels. I will not reject it on some "principle" that I shouldn't have to pay any more than I already do. I still find that ludicrous and childish. Profitable companies do not stay profitable by increasing services and not charging for them. 

To those who ask why they've been paying the $10 for HD access all along, only you know. For me, it's because what I got for that $10 was worth it to me. If it wasn't worth it for you, why in the world were you paying it?? In a free market, that seems irrational. 

For me it comes down to this: HD is a priority for me. I have a home theater system that I've put significant money into, and I want and enjoy HD signal. My options for HD are D*, with the promise of dozens if not 100 HD channels very soon for less than I spend on caffeinated mints in a month; E*, with far less (and no Sunday Ticket); or cable, which locally offers only 3 or 4 total HD channels. I'm thankful that D* has gone to such lengths to get me so much HD. I expect to have to pay for it. It is a premium service for premium-quality programming. If that is worth the money for you, you'll pay it; if not, you won't.


----------



## cuibap (Sep 14, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Also Earl, stop with this bullsh*t about "3 month grandfathering". That's not grandfathering.... that's a limited time free preview, and you know it, and you lose credibility here when you try to sell the lie that a limited free preview is "grandfathering".


Good luck telling him that, seems to me that he's on D* payroll or at least gets something free from them...


----------



## shendley (Nov 28, 2005)

I guess I'd pay up to keep HDNet, HDNet Movies and (I think) Universal HD. I've really been enjoying Enterprise in HD on HDNet. And HDNet movies show a lot of pretty cool movies. And I think Universal is re-broadcasting Six Feet Under which I really enjoy seeing again. But I'll probably treat it like HBO - I'll keep it as long as there's something on I really want to watch (like Sopranos or Big Love) and drop it if there's nothing I find myself tuning to.


----------



## bikspk (Apr 17, 2007)

Poll: Who posting here doesn't actually have to pay their own bill?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

houskamp said:


> I voted no but my real question is why are they even making this little package? why not just wait for a few months and up the HD package to 15 and have them stay all as 1 package? Doing it this way just makes for a lot of confusion...


Where should they put these 6 channels now then?

If they put it in a base package, then you have the SD only people complaining that they are paying for channels they can't receive...

If you put it in a base package, and then want to break it out later...
Then you are going to get a complaint that I now have to pay more for them...

Anyway they do it... it is a lose-lose for DirecTV...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cuibap said:


> Good luck telling him that, seems to me that he's on D* payroll or at least gets something free from them...


ARGG!!!!!

I pay my bill just like the rest of you... my last month bill was $135+
I haven't had a sub-$100 bill in nearly 5 years (if not longer).

If I was on D* payroll... I couldn't participate the way I do in the forum.

But good luck accepting that to all the people that don't like me as a person..
The way I comport myself here in the forums...
And frankly the way I do anything around here.... as I am not universally liked by everyone in the internet world.

Nor do I strive to be.

Anyone want to call me, so I can give them a "credit" for the free service that DBSTalk provides to them?


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

another $100.

I don't believe I will be leaving. I've been a loyal customer since 1994. Yes I've been disappointed a few times. My original programming package was dropped and I was forced to upgrade for more money. They took away my free monthly PPV. I still don't have locals in HD, even though it was promised in 2006.

Overall, I still believe that it is the best quality/quantity versus cost when compared to the competition (Mediacom and Dish.)



NYSmoker said:


> Except the extreme people who will stop paying their $120 a month to D* and take their business elsewhere. If 120 people do that D* loses $14,400 to a competitor, that $600 gained doesn't seem so good to me.


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Where should they put these 6 channels now then?
> 
> If they put it in a base package, then you have the SD only people complaining that they are paying for channels they can't receive...


How are they paying for channels they can't receive? It's an HD channel, and they aren't paying the $9.95 HD Access fee, which means they can't get HD channels.

This is only a problem because D* is "Packaging" their HD in a way that says "if you get a base package you also get these in HD with the HD Access fee." Frankly I think it's little more than a shell game to justify the additional $4.95 fee.


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

One man's piss is another man's water.



bakers12 said:


> I'm hoping the plusses of USA HD, Sci-Fi HD, etc. outweigh the minusses.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I would and then drop one of the premium movie channel packages. HDNet Movies is far better than them anyway. If not for a couple shows on HBO that'd be gone too. I don't think anyone here would notice...especially with the DoD stuff coming as well.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ziggy29 said:


> How are they paying for channels they can't receive? It's an HD channel, and they aren't paying the $9.95 HD Access fee, which means they can't get HD channels.


IF they put it into the base channels....

As they are changing the stucture around, to be a "channel fee" with their negotiations...

So while you pay $9.95 for the HD Access fee, the bulk of the cost for the "channel" is built into the price for the base package rates.

The $9.95 access fee is the same if you are on CHOICE, or PREMIER...


----------



## bcherry (Apr 1, 2006)

I voted no but I reserve the right to change my mind.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Where should they put these 6 channels now then?
> 
> If they put it in a base package, then you have the SD only people complaining that they are paying for channels they can't receive...
> 
> ...


I just think HD access should be just that (that would include those 6).. One package that turns on your HD.. premium movie channels are a separate thing and should be just as they are, you get the sd ones and if you have HD access then you get the HD ones too.. just seems silly to break up the channels into little groups (unless you want to alacart them)


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

shendley said:


> I guess I'd pay up to keep HDNet, HDNet Movies and (I think) Universal HD. I've really been enjoying Enterprise in HD on HDNet. (Sci-Fi HD also shows Enterprise) And HDNet movies show a lot of pretty cool movies. And I think Universal is re-broadcasting Six Feet Under (Bravo HD shows Six Feet Under) which I really enjoy seeing again. But I'll probably treat it like HBO - I'll keep it as long as there's something on I really want to watch (like Sopranos or Big Love) and drop it if there's nothing I find myself tuning to.


Notes above in blue


----------



## superfan1 (Sep 12, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Where should they put these 6 channels now then?
> 
> If they put it in a base package, then you have the SD only people complaining that they are paying for channels they can't receive...
> 
> ...


Its only a lose-lose for DirecTV if they actually lose money...

The more people who complain the more likely they will change things to a more customer friendly package..

Right now I see them doing the same thing they do now...

Try to get people to pay the higher prices to get the packages.. If someone complains offer something that may make them stay....


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

When did Sci-Fi start to show Enterprise in HD? 

I thought it was HDNet that was offereing it?


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

dhines said:


> that makes sense to me, but as i stated previously . . . why wouldn't HBO have a corresponding line item? or, are you saying that i will only see that line item on the initial month?


You dont see the HBO line item as you already have HBO HD if you have HBO and HD Access


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

In fact DIRECTV is trying to break out a new package. 

Discovery HD Theater
Universal HD
HDNet
HDNet Movies

Were all in the HD package, before their was HD access this year. So, yes I suppose one could say "what if the package was bigger" if they split it later, but you can't say it has to be "created" now to avoid splitting it later. It is a split off either now or later.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

superfan1 said:


> Its only a lose-lose for DirecTV unless they actually lose money...
> 
> The more people who complain the more likely they will change things to a more customer friendly package..
> 
> ...


Isn't that what a "for-profit" company does?
Find the magic point, where they maximize their returns?

You probably would be surprised at the decreasing amount's of "what will they do to keep you", by DirecTV and other companies.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> When did Sci-Fi start to show Enterprise in HD?
> 
> I thought it was HDNet that was offereing it?


I've seen it recently (last week) on HDNet.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Which FAQ... the new one, or the old one?


Stop trying to play stupid Earl. It has been pointed out over and over in threads about this subject that the current FAQ at directv.com/hd promises that HD access at $9.99/mo and a Premier subscription will give us ALL available HD channels, and the FAQ states that the cost will not be increased beyond the $9.99 HD access fee with the upcoming rollout of additional channels.

If the FAQ at directv.com/hd is an "old" FAQ and you know where the "new" one is, please post a link to it, otherwise stop trying insinuate that we are looking at an "old" FAQ.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> When did Sci-Fi start to show Enterprise in HD?
> 
> I thought it was HDNet that was offereing it?


Sci-Fi is one of the new HD channels being added, and their programming includes Enterprise.

http://www.scifi.com/enterprise/


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> Stop trying to play stupid Earl. It has been pointed out over and over in threads about this subject that the current FAQ at directv.com/hd promises that HD access at $9.99/mo and a Premier subscription will give us ALL available HD channels, and the FAQ states that the cost will not be increased beyond the $9.99 HD access fee with the upcoming rollout of additional channels.
> 
> If the FAQ at directv.com/hd is an "old" FAQ and you know where the "new" one is, please post a link to it, otherwise stop trying insinuate that we are looking at an "old" FAQ.


I know of TWO different FAQ's, that have been posted in the last weekend.

So I am asking WHICH ONE...
And thanks for thinking I am playing stupid, instead of just asking for clarrification of which of the TWO you were looking at.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> Sci-Fi is one of the new HD channels being added, and their programming includes Enterprise.
> 
> http://www.scifi.com/enterprise/


Cool..

I knew sci-fi HD was comming, but didn't know they picked up enterprise.


----------



## Kash76 (Aug 9, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> ARGG!!!!!
> 
> I pay my bill just like the rest of you... my last month bill was $135+
> I haven't had a sub-$100 bill in nearly 5 years (if not longer).
> ...


Nice! Don't take any sh*t from these babies.


----------



## superfan1 (Sep 12, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Isn't that what a "for-profit" company does?
> Find the magic point, where they maximize their returns?
> 
> You probably would be surprised at the decreasing amount's of "what will they do to keep you", by DirecTV and other companies.


I could care less if its decreasing... I always want to know what they can do for me... like they want to maximize their returns..

So do I as a customer......


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

People are mistaking speculation for facts .. the OP was right in the title - he asked "IF".

Facts:

There is going to be an HD Extra Pack - D* document was leaked but they have confirmed there will be.
There is no idea exactly what will be in the packages. When it was first leaked the 6 non simultcast channels were in the document. D* has since confirmed that they may be in there but they are not sure and there may be others and nothing is confirmed.
There is no date when this package will come into effect - we dont even know when the nationals are going live let alone this. It may be the same time, it may be later. D* has not even hinted at a month or year for this new pack.
D* did not commit fraud on their website as some suggest. There is always the get out clause at the end of every line saying pricing and content subject to change.
Earl doesnt work for D* - come on, do you really think they will pay him for doing this when there are others who would do it for free? Wouldnt they just have their own site? Just because D* uses DBSTalk for beta testers and market research amongst other things doesnt mean they pay for it. Next you will be saying he gets $1 for every CEer he signs up. Or maybe he gets a $10 for every person he signs to HD Access? They wouldnt even give Paris Hilton a free TV last night at their party because she didnt stay long enough so why would they pay Earl?

Everything else is a rumor. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and to pay what they want for what they want to watch. But please dont get personal with people for stating their opinion, even if it is often a more informed opinion.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> I will subscribe, however after paying $9.99 for the limited package this will be another black eye for Directv and will put me one step closer to moving to Dish.


So you can pay $5 MORE for fewer channels?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

We've also seen in the other threads that the FAQs are also fluid right now. The whole directv.com/hd pages are changing as they close in upon the announcements. And the current "How can I get the most HD" FAQ has the standard disclaimers: "today" and "Pricing, yada, yada can change".

Hence I'm careful to say "I will be disappointed" rather than I am disappointed. Things can change as we move closer to the launch and as we move closer to Dec. 15--if that is a real milestone.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Stop trying to play stupid Earl. It has been pointed out over and over in threads about this subject that the current FAQ at directv.com/hd promises that HD access at $9.99/mo and a Premier subscription will give us ALL available HD channels, and the FAQ states that the cost will not be increased beyond the $9.99 HD access fee with the upcoming rollout of additional channels.
> 
> If the FAQ at directv.com/hd is an "old" FAQ and you know where the "new" one is, please post a link to it, otherwise stop trying insinuate that we are looking at an "old" FAQ.


Thats not true. The FAQ does not say that at all.

It says the HD Access fee of $9.99 will not increase. This is an HD Extra Pack - different item altogether.

IT says the premiere package plus the HD Access will give you the most available out of any package but does not say you will get everything.

Both of those FAQ items also state Programming and Pricing subject to change at any time.

So which FAQ are you looking at?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

F1 Fan said:


> People are mistaking speculation for facts .. the OP was right in the title - he asked "IF".
> 
> Facts:
> 
> ...


Facts are so elusive. Unless you can prove them, they are hard to claim as facts. I do know Earl is not employed by DIRECTV. I know there is a document that is reportedly a DIRECTV released document.

Everything else in your post I treat as conjecture and further rumor until I see proof. You mention "DIRECTV has confirmed...". Can you provide links to definitive souces?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Ace Deprave (Jun 23, 2007)

Just the HDNet concerts are worth $5 a month to me.


----------



## HD AV (Nov 22, 2006)

I spoke with a supervisor in retention last night concerning all of this speculation. I was emphatically told that the "Grandfathering" was until Dec. 15th and that anyone wanting to continue receiving HD that was not a simulcast would have to accept the additional "package" which would cost $4.95 per month. I specifically questioned if this was "official" and he told me this is what they have been "officially told" to relay to their customers. I'll probably drop Skintime, er, I mean Showtime.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Steve Robertson said:


> I doubt that I will pay for these there is nothing there that I watch a whole lot of anyways other than Discovery


Ditto.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Facts are so elusive. Unless you can prove them, they are hard to claim as facts. I do know Earl is not employed by DIRECTV. I know there is a document that is reportedly a DIRECTV released document.
> 
> Everything else in your post I treat as conjecture and further rumor until I see proof. You mention "DIRECTV has confirmed...". Can you provide links to definitive souces?
> 
> ...


Sorry Tom I thought i pasted it.

It is from multichannel news (and we know they get stuff from avs and dbstalk) but this article infers that they talked direct to D* for the follow up.

Link: http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6478707

just a quote of the relevent part of the article:


> Gringeri confirmed there will be a tier of HD-only services, but said what will be included is still being determined. DirecTV also confirmed that there will be a $4.99 fee, in addition to its monthly $9.99 HD Access fee, for those who want to get the HD-only tier.
> 
> "They are unique channels [with no SD equivalent] and have costs associated with them," Gringeri said. "It is still being decided what channels will go into that new tier."


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I know of TWO different FAQ's, that have been posted in the last weekend.
> 
> So I am asking WHICH ONE...
> And thanks for thinking I am playing stupid, instead of just asking for clarrification of which of the TWO you were looking at.


You left off the second part of my statement where I said, "It has been pointed out over and over in threads about this subject that the current FAQ at directv.com/hd.........". Why did you do that and then reask the question that was just answered in the sentence that you are trying to pretend wasn't in my post? Now you're playing stupid about the fact that you're trying to play stupid.

Since that version of the FAQ has been referenced numerous times in threads discussing this issue and any reasonably informed person would assume that the FAQ at directv.con/hd is the current FAQ, I think it's a fair assumption that you are playing stupid and trying confuse the issue by insinuating that we are referencing an "old" FAQ.

So I repeat, stop trying to play stupid, and point us to this supposed "new" FAQ and also tell us why we shouldn't assume that the FAQ at directv.com/hd isn't the current FAQ, and tell us why it's OK for DirecTV to promise that (at least for now) there are no plans for a price increase with the upcoming HD channel rollout if they do indeed plan to move some of the channels to a separate tier and charge more for them.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Cool..
> 
> I knew sci-fi HD was comming, but didn't know they picked up enterprise.


Four episodes every monday in chrolological order. Loving it and can't wait to see it in HD.


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

I wonder about the contracts D* has to broadcast these channels, can they just go put them in specialized package like this? Are all the contracts up at the same time? I wonder what the always outspoken Mark Cuban would have to say about that.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

> So I repeat, stop trying to play stupid, and point us to this supposed "new" FAQ and also tell us why we shouldn't assume that the FAQ at directv.com/hd isn't the current FAQ, and tell us why it's OK for DirecTV to promise that (at least for now) there are no plans for a price increase with the upcoming HD channel rollout if they do indeed plan to move some of the channels to a separate tier and charge more for them.


from the FAQ on directv site. #7



> HD Access will remain $9.99 per month. And don't forget that the Plus HD DVR package includes HD Access.
> All programming and pricing subject to change at any time.


That says HD Access . We are talking about HD Extra Pack.
It also says All programming and pricing subject to change.

Which part dont you understand that you think Earl, D* and others are deceiving you?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Let's see...

Because I asked to clarify which FAQ... and yes... I haven't read every single post in this thread.... So excuse me.... for asking a clarrification question.

Not like it hasn't happen before by others.
So again... thanks for thinking I am playing stupid. But that isn't the case...
So "stop", I repeat... stop stating as I was playing stupid, as I have shown more then once that if I was wrong, I admit it....

I asked a clarrification question, to which FAQ you were specifically referrring to... But if you want to keep hamering it home... have at it... doesn't change the point of my original question, of which FAQ.

---------
So if you want to get nit picky on the FAQ..
Which item in the FAQ (the http://www.directv.com/hd) tells you exactly how to get HDNet? So does that mean it is no longer available?

Don't you think there is a reason why that they have in "BOLD" put, subject to change... in multiple places.

Why?
As Tom noted... this is not even the exact FAQ that was there a week ago...
It is still changing and being defined...



cartrivision said:


> You left off the second part of my statement where I said, "It has been pointed out over and over in threads about this subject that the current FAQ at directv.com/hd.........". Why did you do that and then reask the question that was just answered in the sentence that you are trying to pretend wasn't in my post? Now you're playing stupid about the fact that you're trying to play stupid.
> 
> Since that version of the FAQ has been referenced numerous times in threads discussing this issue and any reasonably informed person would assume that the FAQ at directv.con/hd is the current FAQ, I think it's a fair assumption that you are playing stupid and trying confuse the issue by insinuating that we are referencing an "old" FAQ.
> 
> So I repeat, stop trying to play stupid, and point us to this supposed "new" FAQ and also tell us why we shouldn't assume that the FAQ at directv.com/hd isn't the current FAQ, and tell us why it's OK for DirecTV to promise that (at least for now) there are no plans for a price increase with the upcoming HD channel rollout if they do indeed plan to move some of the channels to a separate tier and charge more for them.


----------



## bscott (Jun 4, 2004)

I will buy it...


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> ---------
> So if you want to get nit picky on the FAQ..
> Which item in the FAQ (the http://www.directv.com/hd) tells you exactly how to get HDNet? So does that mean it is no longer available?
> 
> Don't you think there is a reason why that they have in "BOLD" put, subject to change... in multiple places.


Exactly.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

F1 Fan said:


> Thats not true. The FAQ does not say that at all.
> 
> It says the HD Access fee of $9.99 will not increase. This is an HD Extra Pack - different item altogether.
> 
> ...


The one at directv.com/hd which states, "Subscribe to the PREMIER package and HD Access [@ $9.99/mo] to get the most HD channels we currently carry".

In that FAQ, DirecTV is clearly assuring their customers that they have no current plans to move some HD channels to a separate tier and charge more for them beyond the current $9.99 HD access fee, and if the rumored "HD Extra" tier is true I would suggest that the current assurances in the FAQ border on fraud, despite the catch-all disclaimer that they reserve the right to change prices at any time.

If they plan to change the prices with the new rollout of the new channels, they shouldn't be telling people that they have no intention of doing so.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

F1 Fan said:


> from the FAQ on directv site. #7
> 
> That says HD Access . We are talking about HD Extra Pack.
> It also says All programming and pricing subject to change.
> ...


Very well put. I think cartrivision has some issues and no matter what Earl's says he is going to say he is playing stupid. :nono2:

Sometimes it is just better to let these people think what they want to think. But, we all know that the truth is.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

I'll pay it. I'll drop Setanta in the process and come out $10 ahead.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> The one at directv.com/hd which states, "Subscribe to the PREMIER package and HD Access [@ $9.99/mo] to get the *most *HD channels we currently carry".
> 
> In that FAQ, DirecTV is clearly assuring their customers that they have no current plans to move some HD channels to a separate tier and charge more for them beyond the current $9.99 HD access fee, and if the rumored "HD Extra" tier is true I would suggest that the current assurances in the FAQ border on fraud, despite the catch-all disclaimer that they reserve the right to change prices at any time.
> 
> If they plan to change the prices with the new rollout of the new channels, they shouldn't be telling people that they have no intention of doing so.


Note the word MOST i put in bold. NOT ALL. MOST.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/most

They also do not say HD prices wont increase. They say HD Access will not increase. That is true. Just some programming in HD Access will come out. Price stays the same. No Fraud.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Let's see...
> 
> Because I asked to clarify which FAQ... and yes... I haven't read every single post in this thread.... So excuse me.... for asking a clarrification question.


Actually you pretended that you didn't read the sentence that immediately followed my asking you to stop playing stupid, and then you reasked your question that was just answered by that sentence which you are pretending you didn't see. If that's not "trying to play stupid", I don't know what is.


----------



## AlanSaysYo (Aug 22, 2007)

Responding to the original post only...

No, I would not be willing to pay an additional $4.99 per month to _continue to receive three channels that I already receive_. On principle, that's silly. If they want to charge more for HD, that's fine... just do it the right way and don't hold channels hostage for another monthly fee.

Even without considering principle, the content isn't there. I'd rather go another $8/month and get the HBO package.


----------



## arxaw (Jul 13, 2003)

For $9.99 I'd much rather get all the new channels they're adding instead of the few we get now (which I don't watch much any more).

I won't pay $5 more for the channels at the top of this thread.


----------



## davidrumm (Dec 2, 2005)

Has anyone noticed when they list the packages in the HD Programming tab that none of them include HDNet, HDNet Movies and Universal HD in them as existing channels? This would seem to indicate they are moving them out to something else.


----------



## Kash76 (Aug 9, 2002)

cartrivision said:


> Actually you pretended that you didn't read the sentence that immediately followed my asking you to stop playing stupid, and then you reasked your question that was just answered by that sentence which you are pretending you didn't see. If that's not "trying to play stupid", I don't know what is.


Alright tough guy. Let it go. I'm getting tired of my Treo going crazy this afternoon because you're crabby.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

F1 Fan said:


> Note the word MOST i put in bold. NOT ALL. MOST.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/most.


*Most
1.	in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number*

If you don't have all the channels, you clearly don't have "the most" channels. I hate to break it to you, but the way DirecTV is usining the word "most" in their FAQ clearly means "all". They are not saying in the FAQ that you will get "most of the HD channels" for $9.99, they are saying that $9.99 will give you "the most HD channels". Big difference.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

AlanSaysYo said:


> Responding to the original post only...
> 
> No, I would not be willing to pay an additional $4.99 per month to _continue to receive three channels that I already receive_. On principle, that's silly. If they want to charge more for HD, that's fine... just do it the right way and don't hold channels hostage for another monthly fee.
> 
> Even without considering principle, the content isn't there. I'd rather go another $8/month and get the HBO package.


I dont think they are doing it to hold them hostage to get another fee.

I think it is partly because they are non simultcast channels. You pay for the content in you base package. Some of this goes to the channel provider and some to D*. The HD Access fee goes to D* (maybe a tiny bit for the HD content from the Channel). But it is easy for D* from an authorization point of view on receivers to have the channels in their package.

We then have the non simultcast channels. IIRC HDNet Movies charge D* $1.30+ per household for that channel only. So D* has to decide how to pay for that. Same principle as HBO or any other premium.

Just because you had it free before - the $10 covered it. The $10 wont cover it now. D* had the choice to put up HD by $5 to everyone or let those who want this extra package pay extra - you get a choice which I thought was better than E* who forced in on their customers.

The HD Extra Pack is no different from me buying HBO or Setanta. I could argue Setanta is a sports channel and should be in my sports pack and you all should pay $15 extra for your sports pack. Wouldnt go down well.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> *Most
> 1.	in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number*
> 
> If you don't have all the channels, you clearly don't have "the most" channels. I hate to break it to you, but the way DirecTV is usining the word "most" in their FAQ clearly means "all". They are not saying in the FAQ that you will get "most of the HD channels" for $9.99, they are saying that $9.99 will give you "the most HD channels". Big difference.


Ok, we all get your point. Some people agree with you and some don't. Just let it go or call Directv if you have an issue with it. There is nothing no one here can do for you. I for one am tired of hearing about it!


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

davidrumm said:


> Has anyone noticed when they list the packages in the HD Programming tab that none of them include HDNet, HDNet Movies and Universal HD in them as existing channels? This would seem to indicate they are moving them out to something else.


I agree.... in addition to indicating that they are trying to hide the fact that they will be increasing HD pricing when they add the new HD channels despite assurances in the FAQ that the $9.99 HD access along with your Premier SD package fee will cover everything.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> *Most
> 1.	in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number*
> 
> If you don't have all the channels, you clearly don't have "the most" channels. I hate to break it to you, but the way DirecTV is usining the word "most" in their FAQ clearly means "all". They are not saying in the FAQ that you will get "most of the HD channels" for $9.99, they are saying that $9.99 will give you "the most HD channels". Big difference.


I disagree if they meant to say all they would say all. They carefully chose their words. You are seeing all not most.

quote from the FAQ 


> *How do I get the most HD channels available to me? *
> Subscribe to the PREMIER package and HD Access to get the most HD channels we currently carry. PREMIER package contains all the basic network channels and their HD simulcasts, along with all the premium HD channels from HBO, Cinemax, Showtime and Starz. You will also see all the 24/7 RSN channels and any non-game programming as part of SPORTS PACK. (Note: to see out of market sporting events, customers will need to subscribe to a specific sports subscription like NFL SUNDAY TICKET™ SuperFan™). All programming and pricing subject to change at any time.


the key point there is "available to me".

I suspect that HD Extra will be a premium package such as HBO and others in which case it may be part of the Premier package. I hope it is - i have that package. But it still doesnt say all. That is my opinion based on nothing i have seen as a fact - but have as rumors.


----------



## cadet502 (Jun 17, 2005)

I would probably pay the extra through the end of Hockey season and then drop it in the spring.


----------



## M3 Pete (Jul 24, 2007)

I've been paying the $10 for nearly three years, all the while they kept promising more channels that never materialized. When I got the new dish and HR-20 a few months back, I upgraded to the HD DVR Plus package, just to get a couple more channels that it turns out I really never watch (I could have retained the old package and saved about $7 a month). Now that the new HD channels are here, they want even more cash. 

It's not the money, really, it's the principle. :nono:


----------



## Vader14 (Sep 5, 2006)

anyone else get the $3.00 hd access charge on their recent activity? there was also a -$3.00 hd access charge to balance it out


----------



## Mixer (Sep 28, 2006)

House I have to disagree. If you dont have a tier that allows you to see the SD version then why should you be able to ge tthe HD version. The ones that are without an SD counterpart should be set into a seperate package or maybe 1 dollar extra per channel per month would work for those as well.

As I stated I can not see the 119 in the spring and summer so it does me no good to pay the extra until they move these over to MPEG4. Which I hope they do right away.



houskamp said:


> I just think HD access should be just that (that would include those 6).. One package that turns on your HD.. premium movie channels are a separate thing and should be just as they are, you get the sd ones and if you have HD access then you get the HD ones too.. just seems silly to break up the channels into little groups (unless you want to alacart them)


----------



## richlife (Dec 4, 2006)

Six pages in 4 hours! You'd think this was a new CE thread!

Voted YES, definitely. The content is good to excellent and I don't get those super repetitive movie channels. 

I can't believe one poster said HDNet Movies is such bad video he wouldn't pay. I've found the video to excellent -- it's TNTHD that should be shut down if they don't fix their PQ and stop cutting up movies.


----------



## Mixer (Sep 28, 2006)

I am calling BS on the whole letter that was posted anyway and I statd that from the start. 

My suspicions can be confirmed easliy though. In the letter it claims to be charging 4.99 for these channels that do not have an SD counterpart.I hink it is safe to say that this much is going to be true for new Subs.

but......

MGM is not due till Spring 2008 so are they going to start charging from December 15th till spring for something I can't get? Second MHD is it;s own channel however it is more of a combo channel with programming from VH1 and MTV along with CMT. I have all of those on SD. 

Starting to smell the BS yet?


----------



## Ken984 (Jan 1, 2006)

M3 Pete said:


> I've been paying the $10 for nearly three years, all the while they kept promising more channels that never materialized. When I got the new dish and HR-20 a few months back, I upgraded to the HD DVR Plus package, just to get a couple more channels that it turns out I really never watch (I could have retained the old package and saved about $7 a month). Now that the new HD channels are here, they want even more cash.
> 
> It's not the money, really, it's the principle. :nono:


I agree with you about paying for years for very little content, but nobody from DirecTV EVER EVER promised any new hd until right now. No matter what rumors were posted this is the time frame that was always talked about, it is a cpl of months behind the original schedule but not years.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Yup, I'll pay more, don't tell my wife.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

F1 Fan said:


> I disagree if they meant to say all they would say all. They carefully chose their words. You are seeing all not most.
> 
> quote from the FAQ
> 
> the key point there is "available to me".


You are just plain wrong because they don't say "most", they say "the most".

There is a big difference between "most channels available me", and "*the* most channels available to me". The former doesn't mean all the channels available to me and the latter does. This is just simple English and isn't even up for debate.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

M3 Pete said:


> I've been paying the $10 for nearly three years, all the while they kept promising more channels that never materialized. When I got the new dish and HR-20 a few months back, I upgraded to the HD DVR Plus package, just to get a couple more channels that it turns out I really never watch (I could have retained the old package and saved about $7 a month). Now that the new HD channels are here, they want even more cash.
> 
> It's not the money, really, it's the principle. :nono:


...and the deliberately misleading statements to the contrary in their current HD FAQ. :icon_lame


----------



## Tadrow (Jul 3, 2007)

Voted no. Directv has every right to play games with semantics so we will now have "Technology fees" and such, but obviously I also have the right not to subscribe to that package. As much as some people say, "It's only $5", I feel like "It's only TV". I already feel like I pay a crazy amount per month as it is, and I'm still well under $100.

I'll save my $5 and take my kids outside to play whenever I think I might be missing something on one of those channels.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Of course I'll pay it. Still cheaper then cable (which has less HD channels, even today) and also cheaper then Dish which will soon also have less channels. Plus I enjoy several programs from HDNet alone. No brainer, one less Big Mac meal a month.


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

Well such a lively debate, I think it's safe to say those that think this is a horrible idea, will just continue to think that and no one will be able to change their minds. Those that think D* is not doing anything wrong most likely will not change their's either.

My point though is more to the poster(s) that say D* should just include this tier in with HD Access and then raise that price. My question is why? What difference does it make if they change HD Access to $14.98 or if you have two line items on your bill, once for $9.99 and one for $4.99. What happens if these channels start to suck and you decide you want to drop them down the road? Then your SOL because it's part of the HD Access.

Here are my thoughts, services are provided at a cost, the consumer is then charged with deciding if the cost of the service is outweighed by the benifit provided by the service, in my case my current $206.00 monthly bill is outweighed by the fact that my wife likes movies and I like football. Will I pick up the HD Extra pack or whatever they call it? Who knows, I don't really pay attention to HDNet though they seem to have great movies, maybe some of the new channels will swing me, maybe they won't. I personally though would much rather they break it out as a seperate package than raise my rates regardless if I decide to get it or not.

/rant off for now just had to get that out.


----------



## RoundRockJohn (Apr 24, 2007)

I didn't vote. It's difficult to attach value to something that I don't have.

It would be interesting to run this vote in 6 months.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Rakul said:


> Well such a lively debate, I think it's safe to say those that think this is a horrible idea, will just continue to think that and no one will be able to change their minds. Those that think D* is not doing anything wrong most likely will not change their's either.
> 
> My point though is more to the poster(s) that say D* should just include this tier in with HD Access and then raise that price. My question is why? What difference does it make if they change HD Access to $14.98 or if you have two line items on your bill, once for $9.99 and one for $4.99. What happens if these channels start to suck and you decide you want to drop them down the road? Then your SOL because it's part of the HD Access.
> 
> ...


To your 1st point: because it's confusing to the coustomer.. Why can't I get ___HD when I have HD access..
To your 2nd point: So how would this be any different than it is now? there are lots of channels in my package I don't watch.. and some that I actualy object to having, but I don't have the choice to drop them..


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

man_rob said:


> Will you pay?
> 
> Edited to say
> 
> ...


No, because it would be a second service for me and I get five of the seven
channels with Verizon. I would subscribe to D* for HD sports programming
not available otherwise to me.


----------



## kintaro (Dec 27, 2006)

I voted no, with the addition of Starz and Cinemax in HD I won't need HDnet Movies or any of the other movies. I only wished that I didn't have to pay $9.99 (or $9.95) for the simulcast stuff. I'm subscribing to the Premier package, that should include the SD as well as the HD counterpart.


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

houskamp said:


> To your 1st point: because it's confusing to the coustomer.. Why can't I get ___HD when I have HD access..
> To your 2nd point: So how would this be any different than it is now? there are lots of channels in my package I don't watch.. and some that I actualy object to having, but I don't have the choice to drop them..


#1) Why have tiers at all then? Stick everyone on Premier then there is no confusion. Sorry but because some are confused is not a justifiable reason for me to keep them together if there is a chance to spread them out.

#2) Exactly, you've decided that the package you subscriber to is enough value in the channels you do watch to put up with the channels you do not. This is the point of the Cost/Benefit analysis that everyone does, whether they call it by that name or not. You decide what you want to see and what you are willing to pay, with the payment becomes a point it is no longer beneficial for you, that's when you scale back. Just like I'd love to have a larger television, but I decided that the benefit I would get from having anything larger than the model I purchases was not worth the cost of purchasing the unit.

I'm just trying to look at this in a reasonable manner, business will always try and get the most money for the least product/service, and customers will always try and get the most value for their money. That's how our country works and I truely do not see that changing anytime soon.


----------



## mwilli (Aug 8, 2007)

This seems confusing so I called Directv

If you already pay for HD service you will get all the non-premier channels for free, 30 are coming on the 19th with the rest coming in October.

If you already have Starz you will get Starz HD
If you dont get showtime you wont get Showtime HD.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Rakul said:


> #1) Why have tiers at all then? Stick everyone on Premier then there is no confusion. Sorry but because some are confused is not a justifiable reason for me to keep them together if there is a chance to spread them out.


Because Premier is a clear difference from the next pack down, movie channels or not.. this some HD/more HD is confusing to coustomers..


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

houskamp said:


> Because Premier is a clear difference from the next pack down, movie channels or not.. this some HD/more HD is confusing to coustomers..


Sorry I can't buy that, then we have no need to have both Choice and Choice XTRA then, plus then adding movies, there is no difference in concept here, you have HD Access and HD XTRA then, it's the same concept of more choice = good, less choice = bad.

Again I know I will not change anyone's mind here, those that are standing up for their position will do so regardless of what I say, I cannot change your mind but I do hope that I can provide rational explinations for those on the fence to make their own decisions, regardless if they agree with me or not.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

mwilli said:


> This seems confusing so I called Directv
> 
> If you already pay for HD service you will get all the non-premier channels for free, 30 are coming on the 19th with the rest coming in October.
> 
> ...


This is not the point of argument. This was about the rumor that Universal, Discovery Theater, HDNet and HDMovies to be moved out of current HD package into a separate packaged rumored HD Extra Pak. Some people are not happy about the possibiity of losing the channels with current package or having to pay $4.99 more to keep them.

If this is confusing, you probably don't care about those channels.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

I didn't vote. I am undecided. To OP, maybe there can be a "undecided" option.

It's not a matter of money. I waste $5 more easily in many other ways. I do watch those channels. I just don't know how badly I will miss them. I'll decide after I can access how much time I allocate to these channels once new HD are up.


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

Dusty said:


> I didn't vote. I am undecided. To OP, maybe there can be a "undecided" option.
> 
> It's not a matter of money. I waste $5 more easily in many other ways. I do watch those channels. I just don't know how badly I will miss them. I'll decide after I can access how much time I allocate to these channels once new HD are up.


+1 there, an undecided option would be ideal.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Are you forgetting that D* has built and launched 3 of its 4 new satellites, installed 5 LNB dishes for free, some of you got the HR20's for free, and they are adding a whole bunch of new HD channels?

How do you think they are going to pay for all of this? Do you really think we were going to pay 9.99 a month for ever? It says in bold print on your bills, "prices are subject to change at anytime."

I do agree though that instead of creating a separate package they should have waited a while and made the HD package 14.99 a month and include ALL of the HD channels. This probably would have been a better way to go.

And please stop picking on Earl and the others, they have done so much for us in the last year with the HR20, the CE’s, and everything else. Thank you Earl and everyone else on here.

So stop whining and be grateful for the things you have in life, and tell your family that you love them.

And yes, I will be keeping those channels.

Sorry to rant, but today has not been a good day.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Consider that there will probably be a growing number HD only (not simulcast) channels cropping up. That, plus the fact I watch alot of content on the current channels...$4.99 is most definitely worth it.

Mike


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I voted yes, I'll pay the $4.99. I do use those channels and as long as there is unique programming, it will be worth it.


----------



## Dazed & Confused (Jun 13, 2007)

I absolutely cannot believe that anyone has voted yes to this poll. This thread smacks of a setup right from the get-go. At first it seemed like the OP was hoping to get a universal condemnation of the price increase. However, the eventual dynamics of the thread are way too obvious. Just sayin'.....


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Why? 

The question:

Would you subscribe to HD Extra Pack....
Yes or No..

Easy answer for me... Yes... HDNet, HD Movies, Discovery HD, Universal have been worth the $9.99 (to me) that I have been paying for a while...

So they are still worth $4.99, plus Smith....

And the $9.99 is definently worth the cost for all the other HD channels that match my package (I would probably pay $10 just to have SCI-FI)


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

_I'm not part of any "*setup*"_.

I stand by my post as my own opinion.

If anyone doesn't like it...*too bad*!

Not everything's a conspiracy.

Mike


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I voted yes because I'm honest, but I thought about voting no in case someone from D* is reading this and they see we wouldn't pay, they might reconsider!!


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

I voted no because they are 99% content redundant to the HD that will be added with the new channels. There is very little original content on thost channels.


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

I voted yes - those will be channels I know I will watch - I will just turn off a receiver I rarely use to cover the cost.


----------



## DaBearsfan (Aug 3, 2007)

I will pay it. I don't like having to pay more, but $5 is OK and really a rounding error on $140/month I send then today


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> The one at directv.com/hd which states, "Subscribe to the PREMIER package and HD Access [@ $9.99/mo] to get the most HD channels we currently carry".
> 
> In that FAQ, DirecTV is clearly assuring their customers that they have no current plans to move some HD channels to a separate tier and charge more for them beyond the current $9.99 HD access fee, and if the rumored "HD Extra" tier is true I would suggest that the current assurances in the FAQ border on fraud, despite the catch-all disclaimer that they reserve the right to change prices at any time.
> 
> If they plan to change the prices with the new rollout of the new channels, they shouldn't be telling people that they have no intention of doing so.


Actually, if you get premier + HD, you WILL get every HD channel available. I'm still waiting for a single link that supports your BS rant.

Geez, some people use a BBS like their personal crapper. It's fine to have an opinion. But, attacking the people who contribute to the site is rediculous. Show some class.

I've never read anything by Earl that wasn't community oriented. I don't always agree with him, but I can't imagine why I would trash talk him. (unless I was jokeing about the fact that he is personally responsible for the lack of dual buffers on the HR20 )


----------



## cuibap (Sep 14, 2006)

M3 Pete said:


> I've been paying the $10 for nearly three years, all the while they kept promising more channels that never materialized. When I got the new dish and HR-20 a few months back, I upgraded to the HD DVR Plus package, just to get a couple more channels that it turns out I really never watch (I could have retained the old package and saved about $7 a month). Now that the new HD channels are here, they want even more cash.
> 
> It's not the money, really, it's the principle. :nono:


Exactly. Paying $10 for a couple of years with the promise of getting more. Now with the promised channels, they want more money, BS.


----------



## RoundRockJohn (Apr 24, 2007)

cuibap said:


> Exactly. Paying $10 for a couple of years with the promise of getting more. Now with the promised channels, they want more money, BS.


Yeah, I agree with this to some extent. Ten bucks a month for what they have been offering was a but much. DTV should throw a bone to those who have been paying that fee. The grandfather time should be equivalent to the time they spent paying that fee, with an upper limit of 18 to 24 months.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

I voted yes, of course I will. HDNet Movies is the best single movie station on D* right now. If I want to cut back, I'll drop SHO or the HDVR2 that I never seem to use.

However, I repeat that it is really weaselly of D* to crow loudly about their lack of HD rate increases and then slide this "new fee" in the back door. Slimy as all hell.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

RoundRockJohn said:


> Yeah, I agree with this to some extent. Ten bucks a month for what they have been offering was a but much. DTV should throw a bone to those who have been paying that fee. The grandfather time should be equivalent to the time they spent paying that fee, with an upper limit of 18 to 24 months.


Actually, we should be grandfathered for as long as we've been D* customers.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

This just cracks me up.

You all have thousands of dollars worth of HD gear, yet scoff at another $5 for the content to display on all that gear.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

RobertE said:


> This just cracks me up.
> 
> You all have thousands of dollars worth of HD gear, yet scoff at another $5 for the content to display on all that gear.


I don't care all that much about the $5.

What I really dislike is marketing creeps who yell "NO RATE INCREASES" from the rooftops, then scam up some bogus "extra" fee behind everyone's back.

If you going to raise rates, be upfront about it.


----------



## topcats69 (Oct 5, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So... you are saying that I don't have any common sense, (or scene)... because I want to look at the bigger picture, and the value of what I pay for.
> So your experience is totally based on the bottom $$$ line...
> 
> t times... just doesn't = the $15 savings...


I think we all have take in account- quality ,price and service and then decide if its worth it.


----------



## bcrab (Mar 7, 2007)

NO....Enough with all the extra fees nickel and dimming us to death!


----------



## AlanSaysYo (Aug 22, 2007)

F1 Fan said:


> I dont think they are doing it to hold them hostage to get another fee.
> 
> I think it is partly because they are non simultcast channels. You pay for the content in you base package. Some of this goes to the channel provider and some to D*. The HD Access fee goes to D* (maybe a tiny bit for the HD content from the Channel). But it is easy for D* from an authorization point of view on receivers to have the channels in their package.
> 
> ...


The bolded part is what I have a problem with. IMO, under no circumstances should a company ever change a service so drastically and call it the same thing. If they want to change the service, they need to clearly explain what my $9.99 access fee is for, because right now it is for three channels that it won't be for later.

It doesn't matter what they're adding to or subtracting from the package; if half of the package I have right now is being taken away from me, they should rename the tier altogether. Right now they call it an access fee, and they're going to continue to call it an access fee, but the definition is clearly changing, isn't it? In effect, D* is changing their minds on what I should pay for; they've decided for me that I should pay for one set of costs with my $9.99 instead of another set.

I just don't like the way it's being done. Given the choice between keeping those three channels for $10 and getting a ton of new simulcast channels for the same price, I'm obviously going with the better value, but I don't like how D* has maneuvered the packages and pricing.

Oh, and if true, $1.30 for HDNet Movies is a complete rip. Can't you get like 10 HBO channels for $12 or $13 per month? Do they really think their raggedy old movie channel is worth as much as an HBO channel? :nono2:


----------



## AlanSaysYo (Aug 22, 2007)

kcmurphy88 said:


> I don't care all that much about the $5.
> 
> What I really dislike is marketing creeps who yell "NO RATE INCREASES" from the rooftops, then scam up some bogus "extra" fee behind everyone's back.
> 
> If you going to raise rates, be upfront about it.


That's all I ever wanted. Well said. It's one thing to raise prices; it's another to say you won't and then do it anyway.


----------



## Incog-Neato (Apr 21, 2006)

Grandfathered through 12/15/07 then you either pay or lose the channel..


mcbeevee said:


> Thought D* should have "grandfathered" us for at least 6 months. Guess they know people like me will pay the extra amount anyway.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Dusty said:


> I didn't vote. I am undecided. To OP, maybe there can be a "undecided" option.
> 
> It's not a matter of money. I waste $5 more easily in many other ways. I do watch those channels. I just don't know how badly I will miss them. I'll decide after I can access how much time I allocate to these channels once new HD are up.


If a moderator wanted to add an undecided option to the poll, that would be fine with me.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Dazed & Confused said:


> I absolutely cannot believe that anyone has voted yes to this poll. This thread smacks of a setup right from the get-go. At first it seemed like the OP was hoping to get a universal condemnation of the price increase. However, the eventual dynamics of the thread are way too obvious. Just sayin'.....


Actually, I never expected it to be as close as it is. I thought it would be roughly 75-80% of the people here saying that, yes, they would be willing to pay it. After all, this is a D* fan forum.


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

They are worth $4.99 a month to me. I am sure the grandfathering will be short-lived. I think it will have to be. Here's why...

If an auto manufacturer has a revenue negative car, they must quickly drop that model or change it. Each model must stand on it's own. In the words of Tony Soprano, "It's just bidness."

For DIRECTV, each channel is a product that must be revenue positive as well. That is, each channel must stand on it's own. They can make money from ad placement in the channel or from subscriptions for that specific channel.

If you go back through the transcripts of the recent conference calls you will see the same message over and over.

DIRECTV Q2 2007 Earnings Conference Call Transcript
DIRECTV Q1 2007 Earnings Conference Call Transcript 
2006 Annual Report
DIRECTV Q4 2006 and Full Year 2006 Results
DIRECTV Q3 2006 Earnings Conference Call Transcript 
DIRECTV Q2 2006 Earnings Conference Call Transcript 
DIRECTV Q1 2006 Earnings Conference Call Transcript
Investor Day 2/22/06 
DIRECTV Q4 2005 Earnings Conference Call Transcript

Chase Carey each time states that the SD contracts cover the price of their HD mirrors.

So far there are 6 channels that do not have SD mirrors. So they have to be able to stand on their own.

The problem with channels like HDnet or HDnet Movies is that they do not give DIRECTV the 6 minutes an hour of ad space to sell. So the only way HDnet can be revenue positive is to charge for it. Just like HBO, etc.

To go back to the auto maker analogy, if an auto maker kept stated that they would not be increasing the prices on thier trucks this fall, I would automatically assume that they are purposely not mentioning the cars because they are going up.

What is not stated is as imprtant that what is stated.

Right now we have nothing official on HD Extra pricing. My speculation is that at some time soon those 6 channels will cost 16 cents a day. If that does happen, we will each need to make our own decisions.

- Craig


----------



## waynebtx (Dec 24, 2006)

Voted yes, I watch HDNET & HDMOVIES and will watch MGM so it would be worth it to me.


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Actually, I never expected it to be as close as it is. I thought it would be roughly 75-80% of the people here saying that, yes, they would be willing to pay it. After all, this is a D* fan forum.


I don't know how many "fans" of D* there are around here. For instance I found this forum after getting an HR15 and discovering how lousy it was back in August of last year and then "upgrading" to the even worse, at the time, HR20. Without this forum and the help it provided I might be trying to shoot those damn satellites out the sky by now.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

NYSmoker said:


> I don't know how many "fans" of D* there are around here. For instance I found this forum after getting an HR15 and discovering how lousy it was back in August of last year and then "upgrading" to the even worse, at the time, HR20. Without this forum and the help it provided I might be trying to shoot those damn satellites out the sky by now.


It's just whenever I've posted even mild criticisms of D*, it seems like the hordes descended upon me, to tear me to shreds for committing a mortal sin.

Don't get me wrong, I like D*, but really, it's a corporation. I hold no devout loyalty to them, nor do they for me.


----------



## eilloc (May 17, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> I will subscribe, however after paying $9.99 for the limited package this will be another black eye for Directv and will put me one step closer to moving to Dish.
> 
> PS I was originally promised HD locals by the end of 06. I am now being told by a CSR that it will be end of 08.


 I'm in a dma market in the mid-130s on their list. Who know when I will get the locals in HD--subject has been all but dropped from the radar screen! I really think D* wants all those customers who pay less than $100 a month to go away. If you're not willing to subscribe to all their extras, then you're not a customer economics-wise worth their effort. And to get you to leave, we'll just keep adding on fees for services we already have, like HDNet!

There's a group in this region working on putting in FIOS--time to give the satellite and phone services some real competition!


----------



## Kash76 (Aug 9, 2002)

I don't really like the idea of this package but what are you going to do? Either pay or don't. You're not forced.

DTV is going to have a hold on us HD fans for a while, they have the most to offer and people who want it will pay the price. Good for DTV! Customers will talk with their pocketbooks. 

Will there be more competition down the road, absolutely. For now though, DTV will be the HD king and will take advantage as any business should.


----------



## Dazed & Confused (Jun 13, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Actually, I never expected it to be as close as it is. I thought it would be roughly 75-80% of the people here saying that, yes, they would be willing to pay it. After all, this is a D* fan forum.


Yeah, the majority of people on this forum are pretty staunch fans, but I would have expected a little more common sense. Heck, why not just start a thread "Would you pay $19.99 for HD access?" The sad thing is you would probably have roughly the same result.

D* is a business and will make decisions on pricing that support their corporate financial goals. I am just a little shocked that so many on here are willing to help them make those tough decisions easier.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

I'll pay only because of HD Net's hockey. If it wasn't for that, I'd say that its ridiculous to charge extra for these channels, however these are the prices we pay for being early adopters.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

tiger2005 said:


> I'll pay only because of HD Net's hockey. If it wasn't for that, I'd say that its ridiculous to charge extra for these channels, however these are the prices we pay for being early adopters.


Maybe we'll get a $100 rebate in 2 months :lol:


----------



## David HDDX (Jan 18, 2007)

Mostly very good discussion here.

Up front about me: My Sony SD TV died and, as was discussed by family in such an event, a decision was made to make the considerably more expensive (trebled price) leap into the chaotic world of HDTV. We were able to make that change because at the time, we had (barely) the discretionary funds for an HDTV and D* HDDVR. I almost took it back when I found out that content promised was not content delivered.
I was coaxed, by D*CSR into waiting and getting one of the new HR20-700s. The D* cost was 75% the cost of the new 34" Sony tube which was the cheapest good TV I could get.
IMO: The most cost effective package affordable to us was Choice +and HD fee. $10 more a month than the non-DVR cable we were suffering with. Is D* a good choice for me? In short (the long story won't fit here), yes.

I can amortize my hardware investment, but I simply can't go tacking on more monthlies. I simply can't afford it. I am in awe of the level of socio-economic scale on this forum. I am way off the Bell Curve here. I applaud you gals/guys for your ability to make money to the extent that you've the discretionary funds that I hear bandied about here. I sometimes feel like I don't deserve good TV.

Question is, does DirecTV have a grip on it's customer base firm enough to squeeze, yet not too firm to squeeze out? Time will tell, but I will not reward them for raising rates. And, after amortizing the D* box, other content providers will, in fact start to look very good. But for now, in the words of Bob Dylan, 'I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed'

Happy Constitution week to all,

David HDDX


----------



## medic4jc7 (May 22, 2007)

D*sh is charging $20 extra for their HD package. D* is still cheaper for twice as many channels soon.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

David HDDX said:


> Mostly very good discussion here.
> 
> Up front about me: My Sony SD TV died and, as was discussed by family in such an event, a decision was made to make the considerably more expensive (trebled price) leap into the chaotic world of HDTV. We were able to make that change because at the time, we had (barely) the discretionary funds for an HDTV and D* HDDVR. I almost took it back when I found out that content promised was not content delivered.
> I was coaxed, by D*CSR into waiting and getting one of the new HR20-700s. The D* cost was 75% the cost of the new 34" Sony tube which was the cheapest good TV I could get.
> ...


I think the statistics in on your side and D* is aware of that. I suspect the demographic of this forum is not necessarily an accurate sampling of D*'s entire customer base. I do think D* has a good grip of the high-end users and will squeeze a bit. But it's not like they won't give you any new channels if you don't go with the $4.99 extra pak. There are many new HD channels available to all HD access subcribers.

I don't like the extra $4.99. But to put it in context, it's better than they raise the HD Access price by $4.99.

For the record, I am still undecided about if I will pay. It seems MGM would be nice, but if I want movies, I suspect STARZ is a better value for me to add. If I want to add STARZ, I may as well go Premium since I am so close already. I hate to think this way. All of sudden, the $4.99 becomes $20. I hate myself already even thinking about it. If I can resist the $4.99, maybe I can save $20.


----------



## bcrab (Mar 7, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Actually, I never expected it to be as close as it is. I thought it would be roughly 75-80% of the people here saying that, yes, they would be willing to pay it. After all, this is a D* fan forum.


I like having D* but I'm a big fan of not throwing money at them either. :nono2:


----------



## NFLnut (Sep 29, 2006)

I am tired of giving more and more $$$ to D*! *IF* I pay more for basically the same I am getting now, something else will go! 

Personally, I am getting sick and tired of HBO and Showtime running the same made-for-HBO/Showtime junk sitcoms and dramas every night!! If I want to watch a crappy made-for sitcom or drama, I'll watch it fr free on CBS/ABC/NBC/FOX.

As to where I am on the socio-economic scale: I have the funds, but I also want to have money for retirement and other things some day too! I will pay for things I want, but D* has just about tapped out the end of what I am willing to throw at them each month. I have a principle regarding spending money, and D* is getting close to the end of that principle!


----------



## AacidusX (Apr 3, 2007)

From the dtv website:
" Will more HD Channels increase the cost to me?

The HD Access fee remains only $9.99/month. "


" Will the price of HD Access increase?

HD Access will remain $9.99 per month. And don't forget that the Plus HD DVR package includes HD Access."


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

I just looked at the online guide. i decide to run the my channels filter and this is what I found.

all channels








My channels









Notice how all but Discovery HD Theater and ESPN FD disappear. Glitch or not?


----------



## elric (Jul 4, 2007)

I want more HD channels not less... If I have to pay more I may groan and moan but pay I will. Less HD is not an option here.


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

I don't watch sports and very few movies, so I won't pay for the pack:


----------



## cwdonahue (Jun 6, 2007)

It's a "no", at least until I discover some reason to pay extra. Of course, I'd discover that reason more quickly if I had the channels on a free trial basis for some period of time after they go live. If you get my wife and kids saying they want it, then dad can sign up quick and easy with D* for the service. Hint, hint, hint.... Kids are liking all the new HD being turned on.


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

man_rob said:


> MHD
> Discovery HD Theater
> Universal HD
> HDNet
> ...


Thats exactly my thinking. If anything the HDPak should be made a premium service an added the the premeire package. Thats the only way its going to sell now unless D* wants to watch it die.


----------



## jwebb1970 (Oct 3, 2007)

Considering I'm switching from Comcast (where there is no HDNet), the $5 is worth it. Even with this fee, I'm spending less per month that I was w/ cable.


----------



## Captain TV (Nov 29, 2005)

man_rob said:


> Will you pay?
> 
> Edited to say
> 
> ...


I'll pay to keep Lindsay Clubine and the girls of Get Out on HDNet on my screen.  :lol:


----------



## alevine1986 (Jul 10, 2007)

I don't watch any of these channels much. I was paying for the HD package for ESPN/ESPN2 only, so I voted no.


----------



## ONUOsFan (Sep 29, 2007)

If MGM HD proves to be worthwhile and/or when they convert them all to MPEG4, I probably will... otherwise, no.


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

Discovery HD Theater: Are we sure this one is on the extra pack?

It is shown on the Choice package now and I have noticed cable networks don't charge extra for it.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

ActiveHDdave said:


> Discovery HD Theater: Are we sure this one is on the extra pack?
> 
> It is shown on the Choice package now and I have noticed cable networks don't charge extra for it.


Yup. It's unique and not an HD version of a SD channel.


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


> Yup. It's unique and not an HD version of a SD channel.


Then why is it listed in the choice package with HD required?


----------



## jfuchtm (Aug 22, 2007)

machavez00 said:


> Universal, HDnet Movies, and MGM Movie for uncut/uninterrupted movies is a far better deal at $4.99 that Skinamax at $11.99


I agree 100%. I'll drop movie channels for all HD movies on HDnet and MGM.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Will you pay?
> 
> Edited to say
> 
> ...


Yes, I will. I could care less about MHD, but everything else on the list is high priority viewing for me. While I just got Smithsonian (it is *wonderful* (while needing more new material), and I expect MGM HD to have good content. As far as the "existing" Disc HD/Univ HD/HDNet/HDNet Movies, I always look at them first to see what I want to record.

The real question, with all the histrionics and misinformation flying about, is when do we need to "subscribe" to this package. I already have HD access and receive the standard channel 70 series HD stuff. When do I lose it and if I'm going to lose it (or even not get Smithsonian and MGM), at what point do I need to call D* to add/keep it?

The problem is it's a mixed package. Some we already get and may lose, some we have temporarily (Smithsonian?) and one is yet promised (MGM HD).

I'm so confused as to what is and isn't happening, what will and won't be required and who is and isn't "grandfathered" (if anyone), that I'm just sitting here with a vapid look on my face, waiting to be told by someone who actually knows what he/she is talking about to give me a clue.

Color me clueless...all I've seen is speculation.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

ActiveHDdave said:


> Then why is it listed in the choice package with HD required?


That would be a really good question. Guess we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

cuibap said:


> Good luck telling him that, seems to me that he's on D* payroll or at least gets something free from them...


That kind of ad hominem (personal attack) is completely unwarranted. The man is permitted his opinions without assigning malevolent motives to him. I don't agree with everything Earl says, but I have never questioned his integrity or objectivity.

Let's keep the discussion on track and on issue, not personality driven.

Reasonable people can differ with a certain amount of decorum and class, so please, those with strong feelings either direction, don't further embarrass yourselves.


----------



## lman (Dec 21, 2006)

HD theater is not part of extra pack according to this linkhttp://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4370078


----------



## JonVig (Sep 23, 2007)

HD Net Movies, Smithsonian and MGM are enough, HD Net has some great sports on it too. I will pay if necessary, I don't like, but will pay.

Everyone who chooses not to best not complain when they lose six channels in December.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Complaining is what we do best!

My $.02 - It's just wrong that they are taking away some of the HD channels that have been in our HD package and charging extra for them now. Charge us for the new ones if you must but don't yank away the ones that have been part of our programming package for years and expect us to fork over another $5/mo to get them back.


----------



## obxterra (Jun 22, 2007)

Why worry about it?

I want my HD, I want it all. Where else are we gonna get it?

They've given us deals, they've subsidized the rest, they launched the sats, they bought or wheeled and dealed the programming, and the last time I looked they are supposed to be a "for profit" business. 

What do you think? They aren't a 501 (3c) non-profit.

Send it my way, I'll pay "market" for what I want.

:hurah: :hurah:


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

The best way to get want you want is to complain! D* taught me this little ditty. Because that is what you need too do to get the best deal on your reciever.


----------



## bbq-allstar (Jun 29, 2006)

purtman said:


> HDNet Thursday and Saturday night NHL. Plus there's always the new Smithsonian Channel which looks sweet!


Exactly....


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

ONUOsFan said:


> If MGM HD proves to be worthwhile and/or when they convert them all to MPEG4, I probably will... otherwise, no.


Ad supported...


----------



## 248 F1 (Sep 22, 2007)

Captain TV said:


> I'll pay to keep Lindsay Clubine and the girls of Get Out on HDNet on my screen.  :lol:


There's no :eek2: ABSOLUTELY  check box ....... so yes will have to do.


----------



## Jeffro (Dec 24, 2006)

Voted Yes because it's worth $14.98 a month for over 150 HD Channels.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

I wish there had been a place for "unsure". Since there wasn't I voted yes, but I could always change my mind


----------



## bdowell (Mar 4, 2003)

No way I see myself not paying for these channels. I already have found several gems on HDNet movies in the past, and consider that channel well worth keeping around. Smithsonian should be a good one, and MGM HD should be interesting too. More is good.

I may not like the added fee, but it is more programming and more is good.


----------



## gizzorge (Jul 31, 2007)

I actually didn't vote yet, because I want to see what these newly-added networks offer. $5 a month isn't too terrible. Heck, that's just like a meal at McDonald's.

I'm on the fence on this one until I see if I'd actually watch them.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

I'll subscribe to the new channels...after retention gives me $10 off my bill for 12 months...


----------



## djwww98 (Jan 12, 2006)

Absolutely not. Raising prices for the same service I already got and poor customer service are why I left cable.
Hmmm... Raising prices, poor customer service. Remind you of anyone? :nono2:


----------



## pinegein (May 13, 2007)

yea i would the more the better


----------



## Swheat (Aug 10, 2005)

I voted no, but, if the new Stargate series ends up on MGM, I will have to reconsider.


----------



## chd176 (Jun 24, 2007)

I will not pay $5 extra a month for new channels of most that I don't even watch. The only channels I watch in HD are Discovery, Animal Planet, History channel, TLC, and the Science channel. I LOVE those channels in HD but I have lived with SD this long it doesn't bother me not to have them in HD. It's not that it cost too much it's just the principle. I mean if everyone agrees to $5 then it may give the message that "hey people love us we can start charging even more for our services" so no thank you. I already spent enough money upgrading to HD I'm not about to spend even more.


----------



## FlyBono24 (Jan 3, 2007)

djwww98 said:


> Absolutely not. Raising prices for the same service I already got and poor customer service are why I left cable.
> Hmmm... Raising prices, poor customer service. Starting to sound familiar? :nono2:


LOL same reason I left cable too... strange, huh?

Good job with your customer service, D*. :nono2: :nono2:


----------



## bobshults (Jun 16, 2006)

Well, I think it's good that we have been given a choice. Some basic HD channels for $9.99. More unique HD channels for an additional $4.99. They could have just bundled them all together and charged everyone $14.98, take it or leave it. I voted no. Choice is good!


----------



## gslater (Aug 5, 2007)

I don't mind paying extra for the unique HD channels but I'm already paying 9.99 for that today. What I can't take is that they will use the 9.99 to pay for channels I already pay for. 

We've already heard DirecTV at the investor meetings say that they are not paying anything extra for the HD feeds they get from their existing network providers, so to use the 9.99 that we pay today for HDNet, HDNet Movies, and Universal HD and say that fee is only going to cover HD that doesn't cost DirecTV anything, and then to add an additional 4.99 fee so that we can get the stuff we already get is just another way to raise prices. 

DirecTV will be selling a new product (New unique HD Networks) and charging a fee for it. That is not my problem. My problem is with the use of the existing 9.99 fee to supposedly pay for services that are already pay for. For me it would be much more palatable if they just raised their base package fees, include the HD content with them, and then used the 9.99 fee as it was intended originally - to provide unique HD content. At least that way, there is no ambiquity. They'd be raising their prices.


----------



## Bluecrush703 (Sep 23, 2007)

Yes, I will pay......


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

gslater said:


> I don't mind paying extra for the unique HD channels but I'm already paying 9.99 for that today. What I can't take is that they will use the 9.99 to pay for channels I already pay for.
> 
> We've already heard DirecTV at the investor meetings say that they are not paying anything extra for the HD feeds they get from their existing network providers, so to use the 9.99 that we pay today for HDNet, HDNet Movies, and Universal HD and say that fee is only going to cover HD that doesn't cost DirecTV anything, and then to add an additional 4.99 fee so that we can get the stuff we already get is just another way to raise prices.
> 
> DirecTV will be selling a new product (New unique HD Networks) and charging a fee for it. That is not my problem. My problem is with the use of the existing 9.99 fee to supposedly pay for services that are already pay for. For me it would be much more palatable if they just raised their base package fees, include the HD content with them, and then used the 9.99 fee as it was intended originally - to provide unique HD content. At least that way, there is no ambiquity. They'd be raising their prices.


?????????

They just launched and activated one satellite and will be launching another in the next couple of months. We've been paying for the SD versions of a lot of the 'new' HD channels - we haven't been paying for the HD versions. Where do you suppose they come up with the money for the two new satellites that are handling the new HD broadcasts? (Not to mention D12)

If the Extra channels are worthwhile enough to you to pay $4.99 a month for them, then by all means, go for it. If the Extra channels are not worh $4.99 a month to you, then don't subscribe. I just don't buy the argument that it doesn't cost D* anything more for the HD content - for the carriage rights, maybe, but those satellites they are using to bring them to us are not peanuts. And the cost of the equipment used in bringing those channels does not end at just the satellites.


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

I won't pay it!!!


----------



## bosco10021 (Apr 17, 2006)

I will pay the money.

We love Smithsonian HD and can't wait to see what MGM is all about.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

Well I decided to stop one of their sport packages and will pay for the HD extra. So I answered yes, BUT D* played with our mind by saying that there will not be any fee increase for the HD package, they did not say that some of the channels that at this moment are served to us as a part of HD package will be relocated in to another package and you will have to pay for that.


----------



## dervari (Dec 1, 2005)

$5/mo for Enterprise in HD? Sure....


----------



## lman (Dec 21, 2006)

gslater said:


> I don't mind paying extra for the unique HD channels but I'm already paying 9.99 for that today. What I can't take is that they will use the 9.99 to pay for channels I already pay for.
> 
> We've already heard DirecTV at the investor meetings say that they are not paying anything extra for the HD feeds they get from their existing network providers, so to use the 9.99 that we pay today for HDNet, HDNet Movies, and Universal HD and say that fee is only going to cover HD that doesn't cost DirecTV anything, and then to add an additional 4.99 fee so that we can get the stuff we already get is just another way to raise prices.
> 
> DirecTV will be selling a new product (New unique HD Networks) and charging a fee for it. That is not my problem. My problem is with the use of the existing 9.99 fee to supposedly pay for services that are already pay for. For me it would be much more palatable if they just raised their base package fees, include the HD content with them, and then used the 9.99 fee as it was intended originally - to provide unique HD content. At least that way, there is no ambiquity. They'd be raising their prices.


I would bet there will be a price increase for packages also. It's called greed. The American way.


----------



## SatNoob (Aug 16, 2007)

I'm dropping $10 from my bill before I spend extra an $4.99.

I don't need anymore fee's and I'm sick of being nickled and dimed by these money grubbers.


----------



## mogulman (Mar 19, 2007)

No way.. That blows. 

When I got my HD receiver back in May. I changed to the Plus HD DVR service. It is supposed to include UHD, ESPNHD, Discovery HD Theater, HDNet and HDNet Movies and my Locals in HD.

Scifi was really the only other channel I watch that is great now that it is in HD.

So...

Is there a Plus HD DVR Extra package that includes all the HD channels (without premium channels)?

OR is there a package that just lets people keep the same channels they had? 

How about lowering the original HD package from $9.99 to $4.95 (locals and old HDs) and charge people $9.95 for all the new channels?


----------



## 2Guysfootball (Jul 2, 2007)

I am waiting to see what is really going to be in the $4.99 tier.

I am not happy with having to make the choice,I do understand that satellites are not cheap but neither is there service. I am not one the many that has paid the $9.99 fee for over a year (only three months) for a few HD channels that they are now going to charging a separate amount for so I am not as miffed as others rightly are.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Has anyone heard definitively that the grandfathering is actually going to end on December 15th? I believe I've read here that that's the date they pegged to start charging for the Extra Pack, but I have not seen anything definite that the "grandfathering" period will end then. I'm still grandfathered in on the programming package they eliminated last March (Total Choice Plus, I think?).

I'm not gonna start bugging too much over the $4.99 until I get to the point where I'm going to be asked to pay it.

And if there is a list, add me to the list that doesn't really see this as being 'nickeled and dimed to death', but rather see this as an addition to the services they are providing and adjusting the pricing structure to accommodate. I'd rather see them structure the HD Access Package as a package of the HD equivalents of the channels we subscribe to with our programming package and then here's a tier of HD channels that don't have equivalents in our programming packages that we have the option of subscribing to (as an HBO or Showtime) that only costs $4.99 a month. I would MUCH rather see that than to see them say, "OK here's the cost of the HD channels - $14.99 a month period". Then listen to all the people complaining that they "jacked the price of the HD package just to add a bunch of channels I wouldn't watch anyway".

I see this more as positioning their pricing strategy for the long term now that they are adding all the HD rather than just trying to find a way to screw people and get more money out of them. YVMV - Your View May Vary. I would imagine there's a good chance the channel offerings in the HD Extra Package will expand beyond what's in there now as they add more HD channels that don't have SD equivalents now.

Like I stated earlier, I'll have to make a decision about what I want to do when I'm actually faced with having to pay the extra $4.99 a month.


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

I just hope they can think up some more HD surcharges. They need to bilk us for as much as they can get.


----------



## gslater (Aug 5, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> ?????????
> 
> They just launched and activated one satellite and will be launching another in the next couple of months. We've been paying for the SD versions of a lot of the 'new' HD channels - we haven't been paying for the HD versions. Where do you suppose they come up with the money for the two new satellites that are handling the new HD broadcasts? (Not to mention D12)
> 
> If the Extra channels are worthwhile enough to you to pay $4.99 a month for them, then by all means, go for it. If the Extra channels are not worh $4.99 a month to you, then don't subscribe. I just don't buy the argument that it doesn't cost D* anything more for the HD content - for the carriage rights, maybe, but those satellites they are using to bring them to us are not peanuts. And the cost of the equipment used in bringing those channels does not end at just the satellites.


New satellites and satellite replacements are part of doing business. It isn't a one time expense but an ongoing expense. Always has been and always will be so using the new sat's as a justification for an extra charge makes no sense. It is part of the plan they have for moving to Mpeg4 and will benefit them in the long term.

My point was that we've been paying for HDNet, HDNet Movies, Universal Hd, and Discovery HD Theatre all along. If they pull these as this question indicates and then charge us extra to get them back, it amounts to a rate increase hidden behind smoke and mirrors. It looks and feels a little underhanded and there are better ways to do it if it needs to be done. But I don't buy the fact that they need to raise more revenue due to the new Sat's going up.


----------



## netconcepts (Jan 20, 2007)

This might have been covered in another thread. But what about those of us who pay $9.99 now for the HD package that HDNet, HD Theater, Universal, ESPN & ESPN2.
Since ESPN are mirror channels of SD, my $9.99 already pays for HDNet, DHDT and Universal. I should get the additional channels with no change or changes to my account.


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

:nono: Until more channels of HD programing are made available in that package I will vote No...Everybody Call or EMAIL Direct on how you feel about the new plan, otherwise polls mean nothing.. 
My gut feeling is Direct will hold off adding the new charge to current HD customers untill later next year just to keep the complaints down a bit...All new customers will see the price increase...


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

Vote with your Wallet. If you feel that the HD channels that DTV want the 4.99 for are worth 4.99 then pay it. If not, then don't. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but less than 20 cents / day is a good value for these channels. The Smithsonian HD channel is awesome. Great content and the PQ is very nice.


----------



## martin63 (Dec 17, 2006)

I've been paying the 9.99 for HD access since it was first available. I think it is unfair to have to pay an additional 4.99. They did this with the NFL in HD. The first year they showed the games in HD, there was no charge for it. Now it's an additional 100 dollars. How much more are we going to have to pay in the future?


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

martin63 said:


> I've been paying the 9.99 for HD access since it was first available. I think it is unfair to have to pay an additional 4.99. They did this with the NFL in HD. The first year they showed the games in HD, there was no charge for it. Now it's an additional 100 dollars. How much more are we going to have to pay in the future?


So, for 9.99 you will get all the HD channels that match up to your standard programming. If you got TBS before you get TBS-HD etc. We are talking about 4.99 for these channels:

These which you get now:
Universal HD
HDNet
HDNet Movies

and these that are new:
MHD
Smithsonian HD
MGM HD

If you don't get 4.99 worth of value for these then don't pay. simple economics.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

It's still a buck less per month than "Game Lounge" and much more entertaining.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

jwd45244 said:


> So, for 9.99 you will get all the HD channels that match up to your standard programming. If you got TBS before you get TBS-HD etc. We are talking about 4.99 for these channels:
> 
> These which you get now:
> Universal HD
> ...


What I take issue with is removing those three channels from my current HD package and then telling me i have to pay another $5/mo to get them back.

In no way do I feel entitled to the three new channels listed.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

Sirshagg said:


> What I take issue with is removing those three channels from my current HD package and then telling me i have to pay another $5/mo to get them back.
> 
> In no way do I feel entitled to the three new channels listed.


Then vote with your wallet and / or contact DirecTV directly with your frustration as posting here feels good but won't really help you.


----------



## techrep (Sep 15, 2007)

Of the channels listed I would like to keep HDNET but I am not willing to pay extra for it.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

jwd45244 said:


> Then vote with your wallet and / or contact DirecTV directly with your frustration as posting here feels good but won't really help you.


Well it's official - this board should be shut down becasue it doesn't help. 

Sigh!

I was voicing my opinion. You are entitled to yours and I am entitled to mine.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> Then vote with your wallet and / or contact DirecTV directly with your frustration as posting here feels good but won't really help you.


Yeah, why bother discussing DirecTV issues on the General DirecTV™ Discussion forum?


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

lman said:


> I would bet there will be a price increase for packages also. It's called greed. The American way.


No, it's called Capitalism.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Yeah, why bother discussing DirecTV issues on the General DirecTV™ Discussion forum?


People are entitled to voice whatever opinions they want. Please don't stop. My point was that if you want DirecTV (or any company for that matter) to change their policies, you have to use the power of the wallet and / or contact them directly.

I never said stop talking about it here.


----------



## DaveTheWave (Mar 27, 2007)

I have the give a "qualified" no also...

I like having UHD, HDNet and the HDNet Movies channels, but I'm finding that I watch them less and less.

Haven't really tried the Smithsonian or MGM channel yet. Maybe I need to add those to my favorites list and check them out...


----------



## petergaryr (Nov 22, 2006)

$4.99 barely gets two rentals at Blockbuster. 

I read in another post that someone described MGM as the $3 DVD bin at Wal-Mart. Thing is, there are a number of good movies in that $3 bin. Of course, if someone can't find a couple of movies a month to watch between Universal HD, MGM HD and HDNet Movies, than I supposed it isn't worth it.

Of course, HDnet is the only place for exclusive showings in HD of Enterprise, Dead Like Me and Smallville. Smallville especially for those markets that don't have a CW broadcasting in HD, let alone 5.1 surround.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

A small rant.

I work six days a week, The over $900 worth of DVR equipment I own won't record any of the new HD, Have paid for HD service for along time now and also paid to upgrade the system.

Someone needs to slow down the money train just a bit and give back to the long term customer a chance to have a good list of HD shows to view on the weekend.

If your paying ($9.99 HD charge/$100ish per month) programming fees you should get real HD value for the money.

Matt


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

jwd45244 said:


> So, for 9.99 you will get all the HD channels that match up to your standard programming. If you got TBS before you get TBS-HD etc. We are talking about 4.99 for these channels:
> 
> These which you get now:
> Universal HD
> ...


That would be a good strategy (withhold money if not good value), if and only if there were competition (real) and accessing that competition was efficacious.

Poor communications from D* and some faulty assumptions on consumers' part, make things appear to be a bait and switch, not to mention the overpriced HD from the beginning. All of this is leaving a bad taste in some people's mouths. It seems particularly offensive to remove channels from a package we had been overpaying $10.00/mo for and put them in a new 4.99 package (all the while keeping the $10.00/mo fee under the "guise" of HD-ACESS.) I'm sorry, it looks bad.

For my part, Smithsonian and MGM have already proven to me to be worth the 4.99. I will say this, however....if this trend continues with new HD nickle and diming us to death, there is a limit to my good will.

Right now, I"m pretty pleased with both quality and quantity, but I don't want to be "chipped away at" in the near future.


----------



## Vid58 (May 6, 2007)

For the folks complaining about paying an extra $4.99, you must think it's pretty cheap to build a satellite and launch it into space. 

$14.98 for all this HD content? What a bargain. I'd pay, no problem at all.


----------



## cypher (Nov 25, 2007)

So far the price has not gone up, it appears other providers are about the same right now. If it does increase another $4.99 then I would still want HD, if they do not grandfather me in.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

i dont have a problem w them charging for mgm smith and mhd 
but to say if you dont get hd extra you will loose the 3 channels we already 
subribe to i dont like . i will have to see what hapins in court before i decide


----------



## lifelong (Sep 16, 2007)

If HD Theater and HD Net are out of the Extra Pack, the only channel I would really want out of the remaining ones is HDNet Movies. So I'll probably pass for the time being and see if they add channels to the pack down the line. HDNet Movies is a good channel, but $5 for one channel is a bit steep. I pay more than twice that for HBO, but I feel like the multiple feeds and more varied/better content are worth it.


----------



## ub1934 (Dec 30, 2005)

gfrang said:


> i dont have a problem w them charging for mgm smith and mhd
> but to say if you dont get hd extra you will loose the 3 channels we already
> subribe to i dont like . i will have to see what hapins in court before i decide


When i made the move to the HR20 it was only because i was told "not to worry" i will be grandfathered because i had been paying the $ 9.99 HD access fee already.
Now it looks like it was one big lie.


----------



## camtah (Nov 13, 2007)

I have both HD cable and DTV. My main purpose is NFLST of which I have had for over 8 years. I pay the same ~$10 per month for HD services on both systems. The difference is that my cable is adding HD content and still only charges $10. I agreed to get DTV HD for what I thought was a flat fee of $10. If they want to charge extra for an extended HD package, then I want ala carte services so I can pick and choose what channels I want and not have to pay for those "pkgs" I don't want. At the rate NFLST prices are going up I may chuck the whole thing and watch PBS HD OTA for free...

Between cable/DBS and cell phone charges, I don't know which is more evil...


----------



## mnbulldog (Aug 25, 2006)

I love HDNet and HDNet Movies ... and agree with Earl - been paying 9.99 so 4.99 is nothing. UHD is pretty useless but what do you expect from an NBC product (heck they cancel every good show they ever have).

Now if HDNet wins their lawsuit - then my vote would be No. As the other channels just aren't worth it.


----------



## rdiedrich (Sep 11, 2007)

Already have it added to my package.

Randy


----------



## xrobmn (Oct 22, 2007)

I will be adding it here in a few days.. I do see a lot of people complaining, and as others have stated, that is our right as consumers to keep the big companies (or try to at least) in line..

I had Charter cable for 6 years.. when I signed up, it was 41.99 a month with 1 digital receiver.. a year ago. same package.. no extra channels. no movie channels.. no sports tiers.. became 63.99.. 

I called them right before I switched to DirecTV and asked "so.. I want to get the same thing as I had before.. with a HD DVR".. Well.. the reponse made me fall out of my chair laughing "Ok sir.. that's 14.95 a month for the HD DVR.. on top of the 4.99 for the LOCAL CHANNELS in HD.. and $6.99 for the HD tier (all 10 channels) and then $5 for the family tier (nick, etc), $5 for the digital tier (comedy central, etc).. and it just kept going.. so. by the time I was done with the same config as I have now with DirecTV, my cost was $132.94 a month.. plus a $5 city access fee and $13.99 a month in taxes.. THEN the lady told me "the base package of 49.99 will go up to 64.99 Jan 1.. HD will go up $2 a month.. ".. I laughed and hung up..

With DirecTV, I get the $69.99 a month HD/DVR package.. and 3 other receivers (1 HD and 2 SD).. so.. $84.99 or so.. plus taxes.. and then a $5 discount for bundling with my Qwest bill..

So to me, I'm still paying $30-50 a month less than Charter.. and getting a heck of a good service.. better picture quality (charter sucks) on most channels.. So, $5 a month more isn't a big deal.. but I DO see where the loyal people that have had DirecTV for years do feel robbed.. 

This day and age, might as just post my credit card number to every corporation out there as I think we all get taken for a ride


----------

