# Costs to go up and satellite television



## Rob77 (Sep 24, 2007)

Both satellite and cable and going to be facing some major raising costs in 2010.
While there has been rumblings recently that costs were going to go up substantially, here is a quote from Rupert Murdoch at his News Corp Earnings Call.

"When you look at what [Disney's] ESPN gets and what its audience is and how many hours of viewing it gets at the average cable company and compare that with Fox; I'm not suggesting we get $4 but we have to have some sense of relativity in values."

Chase Carey (you remember him ) said that over the next few years when agreements come up for renewal, they will address these issues. He also said...

"It's not a one note song, we need to attack the cost of content, change the value of reruns, look at digital distribution of content&#8230; Though you have to invest in content, you can't survive in the middle. Retrans is a building block to address those things."

So how will satellite and cable companies address these increase costs and still provide an affordable service. One thing for sure, the way we get programs now will change whether it's from more program packages or being able to cherry pick programming to more internet use for programs.

Stay tuned, it's going to be an interesting ride


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Prices generally have been increasing every year on sat and cable services.

With the advent of more HD channels coming in 2010 from various providers, there should be no surprise that those have to be paid for somehow...

The more serious issue is that greed seems to have infiltrated the thoughts of some content providers, and they seem to think big $$$ every time a carrier agreement comes up for renewal.

In some ways, once more channels are out there, any single channels value may actually decrease, in terms of competitive value.

Yes, we'll have to see how all this pans out.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Have TWC for phone and internet and with the latest bill came the price increase list. They've been advertising that HDTV is free but on this price list I see a $6.99/month HD Service fee, guess that could be one way to raise $'s.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

HD Needs to hurry up and become the "Norm" everywhere so DirecTv can "drop" the $10 a month "HD Access" fee from every HD Subscribers bill. That is one way to make programming a little bit cheaper. Saving $10 a month off my Satellite bill would give me 2 Lunches a week during my work week. That would help. Channel costs go up, the Satellite and Cable companies must keep prices affordable for consumers or else people will start to cancel.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

If it goes up too high, I have 3 owned R22s and 1 owned HR22 I will sell.....


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

I suspect the 10.00 hd fee will become part of the overall cost. I can't imagine any scenario where costs are going to decline.

I have come to expect an increase every year. Just like everything else EXCEPT our household income. Here in rural NW Ohio..........wages are pretty flat or in decline. So when it comes to entertainment dollars we have to make choices. Directv still delivers what our family wants at a price we can still afford..........today.

I mumble and complain..........threaten to get an antenna........wife rolls eyes and says Reds, Bengals, NFL, Baseball, and I know there will be no antenna in our future  She knows I love sports and Directv feeds my addiction.

Bruce


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

brucegrr said:


> I suspect the 10.00 hd fee will become part of the overall cost. I can't imagine any scenario where costs are going to decline.
> 
> I have come to expect an increase every year. Just like everything else EXCEPT our household income. Here in rural NW Ohio..........wages are pretty flat or in decline. So when it comes to entertainment dollars we have to make choices. Directv still delivers what our family wants at a price we can still afford..........today.
> 
> ...


   Packers here.

And movies.

And Boomerang and Sprout for the great grandtibbers.

And news channels for Mrs. Tibber....

The good news from today's investors call was that DIRECTV has most of the channels under contract for awhile. (Obviously Versus and a few others not-withstanding.) Cable and Dish are going thru the rounds of re-negotiations that DIRECTV has already done--they "should" see higher cost growth rates for the next few years than DIRECTV.

And then it goes around again.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## photostudent (Nov 8, 2007)

Considering the possibility of major rate increases, I do not think I would do anything that would extend my contract in the near future. In fact, with no kids, we could survive quite well with OTA HD, Netflix streaming, Redbox, and the internet. I just closed all but one of our credit card accounts because of rate increases for no reason!


----------



## usnret (Jan 16, 2009)

Just wait till next year when inflation hits big time. Everything will go up. The more things cost, the more taxes the various governments collect (and me thinks thats what they want - more tax monies).


----------



## DST1913_SPR03 (Oct 23, 2009)

I don't mind the price increases from Directv as long as I can see improvement in Channel Lineups & services offered. I'd rather put my money into the company that has shown the most reliability over the years than jump ship for the newbie on a beta program.


----------



## gphvid (Jun 19, 2007)

Ummm...system for sale when price goes up substantially.

Viewer revolt!


----------



## flapperdink (Jul 2, 2007)

DST1913_SPR03 said:


> I don't mind the price increases from Directv as long as I can see improvement in Channel Lineups & services offered. I'd rather put my money into the company that has shown the most reliability over the years than jump ship for the newbie on a beta program.


i agree. i don't mind a rate increase as long as the content grows at somewhat proportional rate. of course that ratio of rate increase to content increase would have to warrant such a rate increase, but overall i'd pay more for more HD channels.

i'm still on a Total Choise Plus package from 2004 and it's a mix of Choice Xtra and some additional channels from the current Premier package at a substantially reduced rate so i guess i can't complain about a rate increase. i did try to add the HD Xtra Pack to my programming, but it wouldn't let me because i have an outdated package and i would have to update to a current package in order to get the HD Xtra Pack...oh well, i'll still survive. :grin:


----------



## dlh (Nov 29, 2008)

Can't wait until Godwin's Law rules this thread.



usnret said:


> Just wait till next year when inflation hits big time. Everything will go up. The more things cost, the more taxes the various governments collect (and me thinks thats what they want - more tax monies).


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

dlh said:


> Can't wait until Godwin's Law rules this thread.


We're almost there...probably 2nd page, though...


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

Msguy said:


> HD Needs to hurry up and become the "Norm" everywhere so DirecTv can "drop" the $10 a month "HD Access" fee from every HD Subscribers bill. That is one way to make programming a little bit cheaper. Saving $10 a month off my Satellite bill would give me 2 Lunches a week during my work week. That would help. Channel costs go up, the Satellite and Cable companies must keep prices affordable for consumers or else people will start to cancel.


One thing I can guarantee - your bill will not go down $10/mo unless you drop or change services.


----------



## jimmyv2000 (Feb 15, 2007)

I can see in March when D* service goes up to rise approx $6 on packages and maybe another $1 on leased receivers,the PP and the DVR fee.
Thats just my 2 cents


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

TV prices have always and will continue to rise .. as sure as the sun comes up in the morning.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Sure is early to start the prices are going up and I'm cancelling discussion IMHO.


----------



## ronsanjim (Mar 19, 2008)

I can do without the whole gamut of cable stations on Direct. I'll stick with the DNS stations and MLB in the Spring. the rest can go to __ll_


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In some ways, once more channels are out there, any single channels value may actually decrease, in terms of competitive value.


Think about it this way:

There aren't going to be that many truly new channels -- just channels that will be offering the same program in different formats.

Obviously there are a handful of HD only channels (Smithsonian, MAV TV, WFN, HD-NET, etc.), but they're distributed amongst several content houses or independent.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Rob77 said:


> here is a quote from Rupert Murdoch at his News Corp Earnings Call.
> 
> "When you look at what [Disney's] ESPN gets and what its audience is and how many hours of viewing it gets at the average cable company and compare that with Fox; I'm not suggesting we get $4 but we have to have some sense of relativity in values."


I tell ya what Rupert, Fox is worth zero to me, so take it off my lineup and reduce my fee accordingly. (I know, an argument for ala cart programming)

Relatively speaking, of course.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

hasan said:


> I tell ya what Rupert, Fox is worth zero to me, so take it off my lineup and reduce my fee accordingly. (I know, an argument for ala cart programming)
> 
> Relatively speaking, of course.


If it wasn't for their playoff/World Series coverage I'd almost never tune to Fox. And as far as fox news.....:nono2:


----------



## Dazed & Confused (Jun 13, 2007)

mobandit said:


> We're almost there...probably 2nd page, though...


It may not take until the second page after the last couple of posts.:lol:


----------



## ddrumman2004 (Mar 28, 2007)

Here it goes...turning in to a bash Fox thread....:nono2:
Anyway, ole Rupert is going to start charging fees for the ability to read news on his newspaper sites....so why should a rate increase be a surprise?
Old guy needs to make some money....he still needs to eat.:lol:


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Programmers demanding ridiculous fees per subscriber will only lead to demand for a la carte programming, which, in turn, would likely kill off many of those programmers.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> TV prices have always and will continue to rise .. as sure as the sun comes up in the morning.


<apologies in advance - a bit of a ramble....>

I presume that by this you mean television content prices - not TV prices per se (price per sq inch of TV has been dropping significantly).

Regarding content - it's interesting. The older I get (46 now) the more TV I record and the less TV I watch. With my Wii, PlayOn, and Hulu I can pretty much watch what I want when I want for no added cost. I get 3 NFL games a week on OTA. I admittedly have no coverage for MLB that I care about (the Twins) outside of RSN. I guess my point is that there are options for a lot of programming except live sports. And as consumers we should always be looking at the cost/benefit of various options.

I've also heard that if we were willing to live the lifestyle of our grandparents we would only need 1 wage earner per family. My grandfather listened to sports on an AM transistor radio. Of course he did not put either of his kids through college either.


----------



## bb37 (Dec 27, 2007)

ddrumman2004 said:


> Anyway, ole Rupert is going to start charging fees for the ability to read news on his newspaper sites...


And how is that different from buying a newspaper at a newsstand? Or sitting through 8 minutes of advertising during a half-hour news program on TV? Just because news is on the Internet doesn't mean it has to be free.

Face it, prices for most everything escalate continually. I don't want my own salary to stay flat, so it's unreasonable for me to expect that everybody else's stay flat, too. I don't mind cable or satellite prices going up each year as long as the content and service do not drop below current levels. In other words, paying more for less is a bigger deal to me than paying more for the same.


----------



## bb37 (Dec 27, 2007)

Tubaman-Z said:


> I've also heard that if we were willing to live the lifestyle of our grandparents we would only need 1 wage earner per family. My grandfather listened to sports on an AM transistor radio. Of course he did not put either of his kids through college either.


My maternal grandfather didn't have electricity at his house until the 1930's. My mother still talks about the mules he used to farm his 100 acres. And while he raised nine children, the only education they got beyond high school was paid for by themselves or the military.

Our lifestyle these days is incredibly luxurious compared to our grandparents'.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Tubaman-Z said:


> <apologies in advance - a bit of a ramble....>
> 
> I presume that by this you mean television content prices - not TV prices per se (price per sq inch of TV has been dropping significantly).
> 
> ...


Yes, I was referring to to content, not sets .. DIRECTV, DISH, Cable, Fios, whatever, the prices will continue to go up.

I don't have access to OTA, so that is not an option for me. Will Hulu continue to be free? :shrug: Is any form of Internet-only TV going to live up to the broader distribution methods? Maybe, but I don't think we are really close on that (probably 10 years out). Even there, I'd say content is likely to continue increasing.

Sure, you can cross disciplines and perhaps get some reprieve, but I do believe the march is just going to be up, up, up.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

bb37 said:


> Face it, prices for most everything escalate continually. I don't want my own salary to stay flat, so it's unreasonable for me to expect that everybody else's stay flat, too. I don't mind cable or satellite prices going up each year as long as the content and service do not drop below current levels. In other words, paying more for less is a bigger deal to me than paying more for the same.


Many of us live live in areas where wages ARE flat or in decline. Here in NW Ohio, a manufacturing area, times are tough. My wife works for a large corporation that has laid off or fired 1/3 of its workforce. (over a thousand people) Insurances costs have escalated and our deductible went from 300.00 to 2400.00. Wage increases? NONE for the last three years. Currently working 32 hour work week to keep from laying off any more people.

Not whining or complaining here. It is what it is BUT cost increases DO affect some of us who do not have wages that are increasing or even keeping up with inflation.

3.00 dollars here, 10 dollars there and before you know it your budget has gone up 100.00 a month all the while your wages have remained the same or declined.

To keep Directv our family has been forced to cut other things. It is a choice we are willing to make because of the benefit we derive from watching Directv programming. Money is tight...........so we don't do as much, don't leave home as much. (as if there is any place to go any way here in the sticks)  However.......we may reach a point where no matter how much we enjoy Directv we simply can no longer afford the service.

Bruce


----------



## bb37 (Dec 27, 2007)

brucegrr said:


> However.......we may reach a point where no matter how much we enjoy Directv we simply can no longer afford the service.


That's a personal choice you, and others like you, will have to make.

DirecTV's costs continue to go up. Should they hold the line on subscriber fees just because some of their subscribers haven't had a salary increase in three years? Even if that means making less of a profit?

And don't forget that there's a trade-off involved. Anytime they contemplate increasing fees, I'll bet that they weigh the potential increase in income versus the potential loss of subscribers. They may act like they don't care about your situation, and, in reality, they don't. The bottom line is all that matters.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

bb37 said:


> That's a personal choice you, and others like you, will have to make.
> 
> DirecTV's costs continue to go up. Should they hold the line on subscriber fees just because some of their subscribers haven't had a salary increase in three years? Even if that means making less of a profit?
> 
> And don't forget that there's a trade-off involved. Anytime they contemplate increasing fees, I'll bet that they weigh the potential increase in income versus the potential loss of subscribers. They may act like they don't care about your situation, and, in reality, they don't. The bottom line is all that matters.


Well... yes and no.

A good company knows they have to consider their customers' situations from time to time. So they might make one-time adjustments that benefit the customer more in the short-term than the short-term bottom line. In the longer term, both customer and company win.

So how might DIRECTV care for their customers? By always looking at strategic moves, such as packaging, that might get more customers or retain more customers. I don't expect ala carte, but different package options are always a possibility. (No, I do not know anything of such in particular from my sources. This is just generic business sense.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

One thing D* has been real good at is keeping the mirror fee or lease fee at a good price. I used to have Time Warner and they would raise the box rental fee and DVR fee every year. It was like clock work. Pretty much 99% of the time the price of electronics goes down every year. They become cheaper to make and some of their features become standard. So I have no idea why Time Warner and other companied justify rasing box rental fees every year. I can understand if they give you a brand new box with brand new features every year. The sad fact is they don't. I had the same crappy DVR for years and the rental fee went up every year. I call that greed. So now I'm with D* and happy. I hope they don't follow the Time Warner model.


----------



## bb37 (Dec 27, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> A good company knows they have to consider their customers' situations from time to time. So they might make one-time adjustments that benefit the customer more in the short-term than the short-term bottom line. In the longer term, both customer and company win.


Tom, this is great for the customer who makes their situation known to the customer. However, for people, like me, who tend to suffer in silence or who do not make a practice of asking for freebies, it's not good. We end up subsidizing the folks who complain about the price increases.

On the other hand, I can make an analogy with regard to buying a new car. I'm pretty certain that I've never paid sticker price for a new car except for maybe once. I tend to not buy highly popular models, I do my research before car shopping, and I walk away if the deal doesn't suit me. I've always thought that the people who pay sticker without haggling are not real bright. But they are making up for people like me who squeeze every penny out of a car deal. Since I buy cars this way, I should probably ask my therapist why I don't make a practice of bugging DirecTV for a better deal. :sure:



Tom Robertson said:


> So how might DIRECTV care for their customers? By always looking at strategic moves, such as packaging, that might get more customers or retain more customers.


This kinda takes us back to the Versus discussion. Those of us who are on DirecTV's side understand that they are playing hardball over Versus in order to hold the line on programming costs across the board. I expect DirecTV to negotiate on behalf of the better good even if it means a few channels go dark until both parties come to an agreement.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Since I still live... and pay rent... to mom, that means that I have to supply additional services. That includes free Internet, free cell phone (family plan), and most importantly, free DirecTV. That means that unless something happens, I must continue to pay DirecTV for what amounts to regular TV service. I'm at the point where I was long past ready to cut the cord.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

hasan said:


> I tell ya what Rupert, Fox is worth zero to me, so take it off my lineup and reduce my fee accordingly. (I know, an argument for ala cart programming)
> 
> Relatively speaking, of course.


x eleventy billion!

I too could care less about anything Fox (News Corp) programming. Usually it is cheesy, cheap, and classless, just like Rupert!

Seriously when my contract is up I will most likely leave D*.

I have SD service and don't care about HD, but considering the picture is only so so on SD (compared to other providers SD quality) and that the variety of NON sports channels isn't that great (compared to DISH), and customer NO service is pretty bad, I'd gladly just have OTA and keep a DSL subscription, after all I find the internet WAAAYYY more interesting and entertaining than any main stream provider stuff, and it is interactive, like DBStalk is!


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

hasan said:


> I tell ya what Rupert, Fox is worth zero to me, so take it off my lineup and reduce my fee accordingly.


Sheesh, when will you guys wake up? Rupert doesn't own DirecTV any more-hasn't for years. It's Malone's baby now.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Newshawk said:


> Sheesh, when will you guys wake up? Rupert doesn't own DirecTV any more-hasn't for years. It's Malone's baby now.


Did you even bother to read the original post of this thread? It says



> While there has been rumblings recently that costs were going to go up substantially, here is a quote from Rupert Murdoch at his News Corp Earnings Call.
> 
> "When you look at what [Disney's] ESPN gets and what its audience is and how many hours of viewing it gets at the average cable company and compare that with Fox; I'm not suggesting we get $4 but we have to have some sense of relativity in values."


This thread isn't about DirecTV raising their prices. It's about content providers, such as Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, raising their prices to the 
service providers.


----------



## dmclone (Dec 8, 2006)

Like Fox news or not it kills the other cable news networks in ratings and I think is near the top in cable channels period. So yes I would guess they would want more for their channel.


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

dmclone said:


> Like Fox news or not it kills the other cable news networks in ratings and I think is near the top in cable channels period. So yes I would guess they would want more for their channel.


That logic really gets me. The more viewers should mean more advertising $$$, and the more advertising $ should mean less carriage costs (i.e. trending towards OTA)


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

Msguy said:


> HD Needs to hurry up and become the "Norm" everywhere so DirecTv can "drop" the $10 a month "HD Access" fee from every HD Subscribers bill. That is one way to make programming a little bit cheaper. Saving $10 a month off my Satellite bill would give me 2 Lunches a week during my work week. That would help.


Dream on!!! When something becomes "the norm" and doesn't appear as a separate charge/option, the cost is simply factored in somewhere else.

Remember when the phone company used to charge $1.50 extra per month for Touch-Tone service (when many people still had rotary phones)? Well, now everyone gets Touch-Tone service on their line with no option to save money by not having it. Think that charge went away? HA HA HA HA!!


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> So how might DIRECTV care for their customers? By always looking at strategic moves, such as packaging, that might get more customers or retain more customers. I don't expect ala carte, but different package options are always a possibility. (No, I do not know anything of such in particular from my sources. This is just generic business sense.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


It always amazed me why the only package DirecTV offers that DOESN'T include any of the expen$ive sports channels is "family". I am not a sports fan and I NEVER watch any of the DirecTV sports channels but I'm stuck paying for them because any of the packages DirecTV offers with decent non-sports channels include them. I read that ESPN was the most expensive channel for cable/satellite companies to carry. I never watch it. Why should I have to pay for it just to get the non-sports channels I like?

I see the satellite companies adopting many more programming "tiers" like cable in the future if they expect to retain subscribers. Since program providers charge cable/satellite companies on a "per subscriber to their channel" basis, this makes perfect sense. Except, of course, when you consider outrageously-priced offerings like "NFL Sunday Ticket" which DISH network points out in their ads are subsidized by ALL DirecTV customers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ThomasM said:


> Remember when the phone company used to charge $1.50 extra per month for Touch-Tone service (when many people still had rotary phones)? Well, now everyone gets Touch-Tone service on their line with no option to save money by not having it. Think that charge went away? HA HA HA HA!!


This is one of my favorites. The hilarious part was that it actually cost them quite a bit to deny you DMTF service and virtually nothing to provide it.


----------



## Paul E Fox II (Jul 6, 2008)

I believe this was stated earlier but..

It seems to me that everything is getting more and more expensive every day.

Why would this not be the case for DirecTV Programming? 

The only option I have is to pay for the entertainment I want until I can no longer afford to pay the price asked. At that point I will have to make a decision.

If it continues to get too high, customers will leave to find cheaper alternatives. At the point that becomes a problem for DirecTV THEY will have to make a decision.

It's a cold, tough world out there.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

Problem is Paul that the general population isn't having their wages keep up with the increasing costs, so guess what will eventually be toast on the consumers plate, non essential things....like cable or satellite tv...at least the expensive tiers of service, that is why HD service will continue to remain of limited service to most consumers. 

In a way I am elated that people are finally starting to become financially responsible once again in the USA. 

And of course the consumer will force and is foring prices down, I doubt that cable/satellite/FIOS will be able to buck this trend forever.


----------



## davidpo (Apr 6, 2006)

All Tmajor corporations will face a major wake up call in the future.While prices for everything have increased dramatically wages have not,and now that whole mess is being felt.When the major corporations of America started their grand cost cutting move to china.We as a country started declining and it will only get worse. I remember when the makers of barbie dolls proclaimed they had to move barbie to china,or it would cost $70 to make.What they forgot to tell everyone was if the products had stayed wages would have went up as well as prices,but greed overcame common sense so today we're in a deep hole with a very short rope.


Bah sorry about the OT,but I figure in another 10 years cable,direct and dish will have priced themselves bankrupt along with the content providers.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Rob77 said:


> Both satellite and cable and going to be facing some major raising costs in 2010.


A cost increase is an annual event, much like Christmas is, that every satellite and cable subscriber can count on.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

dmclone said:


> Like Fox news or not it kills the other cable news networks in ratings and I think is near the top in cable channels period. So yes I would guess they would want more for their channel.


So I will have to pay more for 2 channels (fox "news" and Fox "Business) that I have blocked on my receivers. Nice......

They could just make each fox show available as PPV and see what kind of ratings they get.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

Haha....

While I don't care for ANY major mainstream cable news outlet anymore. I find them all more interested in diverting our attention away from hard news with worthless fluff about Hollyweird and sports clowns. The best thing on cable or sat for real news is LinkTV or C-SPAN, but since News Crap has taken control of C-SPAN even it is seemingly nothing more than a mouth piece for Neocons often times.

Faux News Channel, "we are the decider"


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

Mail me a penny postcard when you find an article from Rupert Murdoch where and when he doesn't talk about raising prices.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

dubber deux said:


> ...but since News Crap has taken control of C-SPAN even it is seemingly nothing more than a mouth piece for Neocons often times.


You have a source for News Corporation controlling C-SPAN? C-SPAN's own website says they're a nonprofit organization created by the cable TV industry, as they've always been -- that is, cable TV system operators, not cable TV content providers (their board is composed of various bigwigs from various cable TV multisystem operators).

Or are you trying to create a connection between talking points that may be heard on C-SPAN (whether from elected representatives, or from people on C-SPAN call-in shows) and talking points that may be heard on Fox News Channel? That's far, far away from being able to say "[News Corp.] has taken control of C-SPAN."


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> TV prices have always and will continue to rise .. as sure as the sun comes up in the morning.


You should say "PAY TV prices...........".
Local OTA Broadcasts are still free.

But, I've been saying (ever since FCC Commissioner Martin wanted "a la carte" pricing) that the FCC should require a yearly ITEMIZED bill from your provider, breaking down the costs by channel, and with fixed and operating costs broken out. That might even pave the way for a la carte.


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

My biggest gripe is that the cable/sat companies complain about rising content charges and yet they own portions of the content providers. Double-dipping into the profit pool!

I'm normally not an advocate of the government involved in anything, but I think many people would support legislation prohibiting cable/sat companies from owning any part of content providers.

Dave


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

kenglish said:


> Local OTA Broadcasts are still free.


You wouldn't think so if you watched local broadcasts without a DVR. Being subjected to 20 minutes of commercials per hour is not something I'm willing to suffer and I'm someone who looks forward to Superbowl commercials.

Maybe it is because I grew up with the feminine hygiene advertising blitz on TV during dinner every night.


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

I think D* should come out with a package with no sports at a cost of about $35.00 per month and you might be surprised at how many people on a fixed income would jump on it, I called D* retention two differen times and they give me the $10.00 hd fee for one year eath time, when it runs out I will call them again, and when they stop giving it to me I will go to (ota), to me that is double dipping and I am not going to pay it, ever since I've been on hd I have never had a receiver that worked right, there is always something wrong with it, but they take out thier monthly fee just like it was perfect, I don't think they have a single on that works right.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

wmj5 said:


> I think D* should come out with a package with no sports at a cost of about $35.00 per month and you might be surprised at how many people on a fixed income would jump on it, I called D* retention two differen times and they give me the $10.00 hd fee for one year eath time, when it runs out I will call them again, and when they stop giving it to me I will go to (ota), to me that is double dipping and I am not going to pay it, ever since I've been on hd I have never had a receiver that worked right, there is always something wrong with it, but they take out thier monthly fee just like it was perfect, I don't think they have a single on that works right.


They have one it's called family. Once you start adding other "non sports" programming the price still goes up. Sports packages aren't the only expensive programming package out there. Just because ESPN charges the most right now doesn't mean sports make up the bulk of the cost of programming in every package.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

wmj5 said:


> I think D* should come out with a package with no sports at a cost of about $35.00 per month and you might be surprised at how many people on a fixed income would jump on it, I called D* retention two differen times and they give me the $10.00 hd fee for one year eath time, when it runs out I will call them again, and when they stop giving it to me I will go to (ota), to me that is double dipping and I am not going to pay it, ever since I've been on hd I have never had a receiver that worked right, there is always something wrong with it, but they take out thier monthly fee just like it was perfect, I don't think they have a single on that works right.


OTA is free and gives you typically 6-10 channels in any given market, more if you can pick up 2 or more markets via antenna. That $10 HD fee gives you what like 50, 60, or more HD channels that you couldnt get with an antenna, what part of that is double dipping? If you only watch OTA channels in HD and very little else then D* HD service isnt even geared toward a viewer like you.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

wmj5 said:


> I think D* should come out with a package with no sports at a cost of about $35.00 per month and you might be surprised at how many people on a fixed income would jump on it, I called D* retention two differen times and they give me the $10.00 hd fee for one year eath time, when it runs out I will call them again, and when they stop giving it to me I will go to (ota), to me that is double dipping and I am not going to pay it, ever since I've been on hd I have never had a receiver that worked right, there is always something wrong with it, but they take out thier monthly fee just like it was perfect, I don't think they have a single on that works right.


While they are at it, they should come out with one that has *SPORTS ONLY*, without the rest of the channels that us sports junkies never watch. :lol:


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

loudo said:


> While they are at it, they should come out with one that has *SPORTS ONLY*, without the rest of the channels that us sports junkies never watch. :lol:


how about just putting epsn it is own pack, same thing with disney pack, viacom pack, nbc pack, fox pack, comcast pack, Your rsn (not tied to sports, comcast or fox pack) some of them are more teamed owned then comcast or fox owned.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

It is hard to come up with packs that please everyone. Just to many things that different people like. I am sure each DirecTV customer could come up with his own pack, and not many would be the same. 
Then there is the idea of ala carte programing, but that is very expensive. I remember when I had BUD (C-Band), you could purchase packs or purcahse ala carte programing. By the time you picked all of the channels ala carte, it was more expensive than if you took a package that contained the channels you wanted in it.


----------



## kstefanec (May 13, 2007)

dodge boy said:


> So I will have to pay more for 2 channels (fox "news" and Fox "Business) that I have blocked on my receivers. Nice......
> 
> They could just make each fox show available as PPV and see what kind of ratings they get.





dubber deux said:


> Haha....
> 
> While I don't care for ANY major mainstream cable news outlet anymore. I find them all more interested in diverting our attention away from hard news with worthless fluff about Hollyweird and sports clowns. The best thing on cable or sat for real news is LinkTV or C-SPAN, but since News Crap has taken control of C-SPAN even it is seemingly nothing more than a mouth piece for Neocons often times.
> 
> Faux News Channel, "we are the decider"


Ok, while we're bashing Fox News, let me take the time to bash the bashers. If Glen Beck were PPV, I would pay for it. I'm sorry you can't handle the truth about the Marxist in the Oval Office, but don't make it out that people like me who want the other side of the story are somehow inferior. BTW, I have CNN & MSNBC blocked on my receivers. They are the ones who talk about worthless fluff and get tingles up their legs over the the current administration.

I thought this forum was for people who enjoy satellite TV. Now that we're fair and balanced, let's knock off the politics.:nono2:


----------



## carl.066 (Jul 24, 2008)

Agreed. Political bloviating serves no useful purpose.

The recent news that Comcast is buying NBC Universal should send chills down everyone's spines. We all saw what happened when Comcast made outrageous demands to D* for their Versus channel. Now they will get access to many other programming services and can dictate what others must pay for them.

Although I hate Big Government for obvious reasons, it may be time for the FCC to demand that satellite and cable companies provide true a-la-carte programming options. They have already started making noises about this. Here's my template:
Offer 25 channels from group A for $0.75 per channel
Offer 25 channels from group B for $1.00 per channel
Offer 25 channels from group C for $1.25 per channel
Add in HD Locals for $5.00
Offer a new choice of one or two SD distant major market locals for those who are interested in what is going on there. $10.00/mo. would seem a fair price to pay.

No changes to movie, specialty channels or equipment leasing costs.
This will match what the average subscriber is paying now, except you get only the channels you actually watch! Until such time as most of the other worthless channels disappear, due to lack of viewership, continue to offer the current bevy of hundreds of channels per package for those who MUST have access to everything.

The technology is here now, and should give satellite companies an advantage (at least initially) if DNS is included in the offer. L.A., NYC and Chicago already on Conus beams, it wouldn't be much trouble or added expense to move 4 or 5 other major cities to national beams from spot beams. This could be done gradually. Cable companies would have to scramble to keep up.

Wishful thinking for now, but perhaps the Government could do something useful for a change!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

carl.066 said:


> The recent news that Comcast is buying NBC Universal should send chills down everyone's spines. We all saw what happened when Comcast made outrageous demands to D* for their Versus channel. Now they will get access to many other programming services and can dictate what others must pay for them.


I think when all is said and done, we're going to find out that Versus was not the one making outrageous demands. I'm pretty sure that honor goes to DIRECTV for wanting to move the channel to a significantly less populace tier for the same money per subscriber.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Some day you'll have to let us in on who your DirecTV insider is that apparently provides you with all of this non-public information. Based on your statements, I have to think that's where you get your info. 

Unless, of course, it tends to be inaccurate more often than not?


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

txtommy said:


> If it wasn't for their playoff/World Series coverage I'd almost never tune to Fox. And as far as fox news.....:nono2:


I don't FOX TV but I watch Natgeo.


----------



## IDRick (Feb 16, 2007)

carl.066 said:


> Although I hate Big Government for obvious reasons, it may be time for the FCC to demand that satellite and cable companies provide true a-la-carte programming options. They have already started making noises about this. Here's my template:
> Offer 25 channels from group A for $0.75 per channel
> Offer 25 channels from group B for $1.00 per channel
> Offer 25 channels from group C for $1.25 per channel
> ...


I like your idea carl!  We watch less than 25 channels at our house but most likely some would be in A, some in B and some C. Alacart wouldn't save any dollars in that scenario...

It would be interesting to see what happens to the national news channels if we could pick only one or two from the group. There would be surprises, IMO anyway...

Best,

Rick


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

carl.066 said:


> Agreed. Political bloviating serves no useful purpose.
> 
> The recent news that Comcast is buying NBC Universal should send chills down everyone's spines. We all saw what happened when Comcast made outrageous demands to D* for their Versus channel. Now they will get access to many other programming services and can dictate what others must pay for them.
> 
> ...


Very good conception carl. I'd be very interested in this type of plan.


----------

